Know Your Enemy: A History of the Devil’s Devices | 2 Corinthians 2:11

So today's sermon title is a continuation of a series that I've been preaching about knowing your enemy. Starting with the world and now the devil. The devil himself, the devil's offspring was last week and now the devil's devices, the devil's schemes.

The Nephilim, the Gap Theory, and the Devil’s Devices

So these are controversial matters. They're dense matters. There's a lot of different views about this and so it can get a little sticky and involved but sometimes sticky is good. So we're gonna keep moving forward with this topic.

There's still a lot of things to cover that I want to get to and hopefully bless you all with so that we can be equipped to deal with the enemy in our lives. I also wanted to make some clarifications from last week.

I started to think more about this and study as I was studying for the message that ministries like Answers in Genesis seem to be reluctant to take a view of the Nephilim in Genesis 6 because different views often, especially the fallen angel view, the one that I'm that I've been teaching, is it commits you to an entire worldview that has far-reaching impact all over the Bible, all over your theology, your understanding of the Word.

It's a very, actually a very significant issue that affects how you view the rest of the Scriptures, the entire Old Testament and the New Testament as well to a lesser extent but nevertheless, of prophecy, biblical history, theology, and of course spiritual warfare.

So it touches a lot of areas and so we need to make sure we have a good understanding of what the Bible teaches so that we can know the truth and that it will set us free and we can do spiritual warfare effectively and accordingly.

And I think that the more you dig into this topic the more you will find this particular understanding to be very scripturally robust and consistent and I think it's the most robust and that's why I wouldn't be preaching it if I didn't think it was.

So like I've been doing previously, I want to give credit once again where it's due and I also I purchased a book recently by Douglas Van Dorn who wrote a book on the sons of the God, Giants, Sons of the Gods.

He also has a really good book called The Unseen Realm, a question-and-answer commission companion. It's a companion book to Michael Heiser's book on The Unseen Realm and it's like a catechism. It's outstanding, it's very well done by a fellow Reformed Baptist so we're on the same camp.

He's very solid, very good book to get a hold of. Another one that has been actually surprisingly helpful is Dr. Chuck Missler's expositional commentary on the book of Genesis with some caveats of course.

They all have caveats but Dr. Missler, for those of you who may have listened to him before or heard him, he has some very useful presentations including the one on Genesis especially because he likes to dig into the original languages and really dig into the the meat of the word.

However, he gets into certain forms of Bible codes and weird formulas and stuff and that are just not, they're not there. It's a form of eisegesis, if you remember the meaning of that word. It's imposing an arbitrary or a foreign meaning into the text and that's not what we're supposed to do.

We're supposed to exegete or extract the meaning from the text, not put something else into it. So that's what a lot of these Bible codes are. If you take these letters and you multiply them by this number and you get this special thing and it's like well that that's not, that's just you're just making stuff up.

It's not there. He also likes to incorporate lots of science into his presentations but even he admits that the science frequently changes and so it's kind of funny because science and its methods are always false and cannot discover knowledge or truth.

They cannot. Though it is often useful for subduing the earth. That's what science is really meant for is what we should use it for as believers is to subdue the earth, not to discover knowledge. As Gordon Clark also says and we could talk more about that later on if you want to.

I don't have time to get into that today but it's going to be relevant later on. Another prolific author that I totally forgot to mention is Steve Quayle. Steve Quayle has tons of books on fallen angels, Nephilim, giants, all kinds of this stuff.

He's been doing decades of research and compiling evidence of all these giants and their monuments and their statues and just these different things and unlike like the ancient alien series, you know, that's very, it's kind of, it's weird and it's not, they tend to twist scripture.

Quayle is actually a Christian who grounds himself in the word, who is a Christian himself. So another good resource there. He's got tons of good stuff there you can take advantage of. So we're really just scratching the surface.

There's also a very interesting documentary called A Race of Giants, Our Forbidden History. You can actually watch that for free online and it's very, very, pretty well done. It's got a lot of interesting research showing all of these giant fossils of bones and giant weapons and all this giant stuff that the secular, the world is trying to suppress.

So like I said, every, all of this stuff has a disclaimer. You have to kind of be careful with biases or things that we wouldn't necessarily agree with. One that I mentioned before was G. Craig Lewis whom I really, he would help me a lot with my understanding of these things, but he's also a hardcore Armenian.

So we are not Armenian. Obviously we are Reformed Baptists. We, and so we have differences with him as well and with, with some of these other folks too. So just something to be mindful of. Now, I was, I was also talking to Pastor Tim earlier and he made me realize that I need to clarify some things about the gap theory that I mentioned before and to expound upon them as well, to kind of draw things out a little bit better because there's some, there's some differences that need to be accounted for.

And this will also set the stage for the context of what follows that in this, you know, this divine conflict, divine human conflict and drama that's been unfolding with the two seeds in Genesis. So there are two versions of the gap theory.

One is biblical and the other is not. And I'm advocating for the unbiblical scientific gap theory today. Just kidding. I'm just making sure that y 'all are paying attention. No, so there is one gap theory that tries to isogy or impose an unbiblical, biblical view of science and evolutionary theory into the Bible.

And by shoving millions and billions of years into the gap between Genesis 1 .1 and 1 .2. And so, but we have to remember that science is always false when it comes to knowledge. And any atheist that knows what he's talking about, philosopher of science, will tell you the exact same thing.

So I'm trying, that's not what I'm doing. That's not, that's not what I believe and that's not what I'm teaching. I'm trying to fully reconcile the whole counsel of God and apply the analogies of faith and of scripture consistently throughout.

That's the goal and that is why I've come to this conclusion. And to holding to the biblical version of the gap theory. And we need to address this in order to know and understand our enemy. It's all part of the same goal here.

Our adversary, the devil. So then in light of this, let's ask a very simple but important question. When did Satan rebel? When did he fall? When did he rebel? Because if you recall in Genesis 3, the serpent was already in the garden.

The shining one, right? The shining one. So Satan must have fallen beforehand. He was already evil. He was already tempting Eve to disobey God. So he was already clearly evil. And in light of that, let's go back now to Genesis chapter 1 and find, let's get some more detail on this background.

Back in Genesis 1, we're gonna dig a little deeper into this today. So in Genesis chapter 1, and I'm gonna be reading the NASB, we read verse 1. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

The earth was formless and void and darkness was over the surface of the deep. And the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters. Then God said, let there be light. And there was light. God saw that the light was good and God separated the light from the darkness.

God called the light day and the darkness he called night. And there was evening and there was morning one day. One day. Okay, so I want to break down especially verses 1 and 2 a little bit. In verses 1 and 2, we see the translations tend to obscure something that the Hebrew actually says.

First of all, it says in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. It's singular. And then in verse 2, the Hebrew actually suggests that it's not and. Typically a lot of translations say and the earth.

But really the Hebrew, it's a contrast. So it's really saying but the earth was formless and void. Now that's the other problem is that it says was formless and void. In the Hebrew, once again, it's actually suggesting became formless and void.

It became formless and void. And darkness was over the surface of the deep and the Spirit of God was moving. So there's a contrast here in verse 2. But the earth became formless and void. And again, a better rendering of formless and void is it became a waste, desolate, empty.

And God had covered the earth with water. So that's very important to take into consideration. And it's also suggesting, that's why this gap theory exists, because it's suggesting a result that this waste and emptiness was a result of a prior action or judgment from God on the earth.

And so you don't need to take my word for it. We can talk to our good friend, the Reformed Baptist theologian, A .W. Pink. I was very surprised to hear that he actually takes his view. He has a fascinating commentary on this passage in his classic book on the sovereignty of God.

And I completely missed this myself when I first read it. But in that book, he says, we read in verse 2 of Genesis and the earth was without form and void and darkness was upon the face of the deep. The original Hebrew here might be literally rendered thus.

And the earth had become a desolate ruin and darkness was upon the face of the deep. In the beginning, the earth was not created in the condition described in verse 2. Between the first two verses of Genesis 1, some awful catastrophe had occurred, possibly the fall of Satan.

And there's your answer, right? There's what he's getting at. And as the consequence, the earth had been blasted and blighted and had become a desolate ruin. Desolate ruin. Lying beneath a pall of darkness.

Such also is the history of man. Today, man is not in the condition which he left the hands of his creator. In which, yeah, an awful catastrophe has happened and now man is a desolate ruin and a total darkness concerning spiritual things.

Next, we read in Genesis 1 how God refashioned the ruined earth and created new beings to inhabit it. First, we read, and the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the water. Next, we are told, and God said, let there be light.

And there was light. The order is the same in the new creation. There is first the action of the Spirit and then the Word of God giving light. Before the Word found, enters into the scene of desolation and darkness, bringing with it the light, the Spirit of God moved.

So, it is in the new creation. So, he's making a parallel between regeneration and conversion. And in another sense, you could even say that he baptized the earth in water in this judgment that's being suggested here.

And the entrance of thy word giveth light according to Psalm 119, 130. But before it can enter the dark and human heart, the Spirit of God must operate or move upon it. And so, now let's turn to Psalm 18.

Psalm 18. This is a very revealing passage that sheds more light on this topic regarding this gap in Genesis. In Psalm 18, starting in verse 7, I want us to take a close look at this and see if you can spot any flashbacks to creation.

Okay? In verse 7,. Then the earth shook and quaked, and the foundations of the were trembling, and were shaken, because he, God, was angry. Smoke went up out of his nostrils, and fire from his mouth devoured.

Coals were kindled by it. He's getting ready for judgment, in other words. He bowed the heavens also, and came down with thick darkness under his feet. Notice that, the darkness. He rode upon a cherub.

A cherub. Sounds familiar? Flashback. A cherub, like the serpent, the Nahash, the shining one, the cherub. Angel. And flew, and he sped upon the wings of the wind. He made darkness his hiding place, his canopy.

See, remember the flashback again. The earth was covered in darkness and in water. Around him, darkness of waters. Of waters. Thick clouds of the skies. This is literally pointing back to Genesis 1. From the brightness before him passed his thick clouds, hailstones and coals of fire.

And the Lord also thundered in the heavens, and the Most High uttered his voice, hailstones and coals of fire. He sent out his arrows and scattered them, and lightning flashes and abundance enrouted them.

The channels of water then appeared. Flashback again. And the foundations of the world were laid bare. Empty. Null. Void. Desolate. At your rebuke, O Lord, at the blast of the breath of your nostrils.

So this sounds an awful lot like what we just read in Genesis 1. And 2. That God had created the earth, and then he wiped it out in judgment. He literally wiped it out with water. A judgment of water.

Prior to recreating it with mankind. And also take note how the same exact words now pointing to Adam and Noah. The same exact words that God uses in his directives to both Adam and Noah to fill the earth.

In Genesis 1 .28 it says, God blessed them and said to Adam and Eve, be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it. That word fill is milu in the Hebrew. It means to replenish or also refill or furnish.

And in Genesis 9 .1 we see the exact same words being used to Noah. And God blessed Noah and his sons and said to them, be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. Milu it. Refill it. Replenish it. So this is again suggesting further a parallel judgment.

A parallel judgment in Genesis 1 and in Genesis 7 .6 with the nephilim of the flood with water. So now things are about to get spicier. Okay. According to the net Bible, which is actually a pretty decent translation and has very good scholarly notes in it, but this one we have some issues with.

The net Bible says, traditional translations have followed a more literal rendering of waste and void. The words describe a condition that is without form and empty. What we know as the earth was actually an unfilled mass covered by water and darkness.

Later, Tohu and Bohu, when used in proximity, describe a situation resulting from judgment, such as Isaiah 34 .11 and Jeremiah 4 .23. If you recall that, Jeremiah 4 .23, when it's using the same language of waste and void.

Waste or Tohu and void, Bohu. Those are the Hebrew words. They, when used together in proximity, they describe a situation resulting from judgment. And Isaiah 34 .11 says, and he will stretch over the line of desolation of Tohu and the plumb line of emptiness of Bohu.

It's judgment. Both, the note continues, both prophets, Isaiah and Jeremiah, may be picturing judgment as the reversal of creation in which God's judgment causes the world to revert to its primordial condition.

This later use of the terms has led some to conclude that Genesis 1 -2 presupposes the judgment of a prior world, which is the gap theory. But it is an unsound method to read the later application of the imagery in a context of judgment back into Genesis 1 -2.

So they're saying that that's unsound. And if you think I've got something to say about, you are most certainly correct. Let's dig into this. So why is it an unsound method? Why are they saying this? Says who?

According to who? Now even though these scholars acknowledge, they actually acknowledge that Tohu or formless or waste and Bohu, void or empty, are always used in the context of a judgment, they claim that this verse is the exception to that, right?

They claim it's the exception without any evidence by simply assuming their interpretation without proving it. But these judgment passages are not just using the same imagery like the note was saying.

They're using the same language. It's the same exact language. It's making a parallel by using the same language. Like Adam and Noah filling the earth. Like the earth becoming a wasted and desolate and void.

Tohu and Bohu. So this makes them more obvious parallels to the creation story. These judgment narratives are paralleling the creation story using the same language. So and like Michael Heiser, unfortunately, this net Bible textual note undermines the principle of progressive revelation, which means that the later text of the Bible often illuminates and help to explain earlier texts that refer back to Genesis, for example, and often clarifies or elaborates the book of Genesis.

It is therefore also undermines the analogy of Scripture because we need to use Scripture to interpret Scripture and it's not inappropriate to use a later passages. In fact, it's actually usually more appropriate to use a later revelation to explain an earlier revelation.

So they're going against that very principle. It's a fundamental principle of proper biblical interpretation. Now, specifically, these are also the fallacies of or false arguments of circular reasoning and of special pleading because it's an artificial attempt to make an exception out of this verse to exclude it from the language of judgment that the Bible uses everywhere else.

So I would just ask these scholars, would Jesus' own method of interpreting Scripture be unsound? Why am I saying that? Well, because in Matthew 11 23 to 24, Jesus himself said, and Capernaum, will you be exalted to heaven?

You will descend to Hades, for if the miracles had occurred in Sodom, which occurred in you, it would have remained to this day. They would not have been judged, in other words. Nevertheless, I say to you that it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and the day of judgment than for you.

Okay, so what is Jesus doing here? In this passage, Christ, hypothetically, he's hypothetically reading his miracles instead of the judgment of Sodom back into Sodom and Gomorrah. And he says that therefore they would have repented and they would have been spared from judgment.

So he is applying a parable or a scenario, a hypothetical scenario, of miracles to elaborate and clarify the judgment of Sodom and Gomorrah. He's expanding on it, adding new information, and the far worse judgment on Capernaum because they reject Christ's miracles.

So, in other words, Jesus uses the same basic method that is used with respect to applying the judgment language of Tohu and Bohu back into the Genesis creation story. That's what Jesus did, okay? Except that even the judgment language of Tohu and Bohu is even more explicit and it's not hypothetical.

It's actually talking about judgment. It's not a hypothetical scenario. So, on the contrary, scholars who claim that it is unsound to read judgment back into Genesis because of this, well, they don't even say it.

They just declare it. It's not only unsound, but it's also dangerous because it leads you to very false understandings of the Bible. Just like Heiser concluding that, well, it's just a local flood because you're not supposed to just interpret the Bible in its own context.

You have to interpret it in light of its whole context, the entire context of Scripture. So, now this takes us to the question of time. Back to the question of time now. Now, I've been wrestling for how to make sense of this creation gap with respect to time because this is very important in what's going on in Genesis 1.

But, of course, as I always say, we must first define our terms. So, the question arises, what is time? What is time? Now, Gordon Clark defines time for us as the succession of ideas in a created mind.

The succession of ideas in a created mind. If in man does not become omniscient, then man remains a temporal creature forever because he's always changing. His mind is changing, and it's expanding, and it's learning and growing.

Now, Clark further argues that Augustine locates time in the mind or the soul. Past time exists in our memory. Future time is our present anticipation. When we measure time, excuse me, I'm sorry about that, oh man, I got too excited, I tried to finish it.

Okay, when, okay, where was I? So, when past time, excuse me, further time is our present anticipation. Excuse me, okay, I think that's better. When we measure time, therefore, we are measuring the passing ideas in our mind.

The passing ideas in our mind. Such is the basis for Augustine's answer to the question, what was God doing before he did anything? The question is poor because there is no before in eternity. There's no before and there's no after.

So, time, Clark continues, is a function of a created being. Not a created body, but a created mind because it's measuring the changes of ideas in the mind. This means that there could have been no time before the creation of the world.

It also means that eternity is different from time because time is a function of change and God is immutable or unchanging. So, here's the dilemma. According to the gap theory, God was already subjecting the earth to change and to judgment.

So, how do we account for that? The answer lies in Genesis 1 verse 4. In Genesis 1 verse 4, we see what happens with time as we understand it in our world. In verse 4, it says, God saw that the light was good and God separated the light from the darkness and God called the night the light day and the darkness he called night and there was evening and there was morning one day.

So, this is where God is establishing the construct of time in our world. Light, day. Night, day. Darkness, light. Morning, evening, one day. So, this is time as we understand it. So, however, now Genesis 1 and 2 though, this is talking about the change and a judgment that was taking place in another realm, in a supernatural dimension, where it wasn't our world or our realm, where time does not necessarily function in the same way.

It's not the same as it is in our world, as it is in Genesis 1 verse 4, because that's when time was established in our world. This also helps us to better understand the devil's background, motives, and devices for attempting to corrupt God's creation in general and mankind in particular, if you recall from the last sermons.

And hopefully, that clarifies some things for you and encourages you to dig deeper into this subject because it's just a fascinating topic that there's a lot more to go into. But now, I want to recap and continue dealing with the devil's devices because now you see a lot of the motives behind the devil and why he was a serpent there in the garden.

He was previously judged and he had previously fallen. And so, the last sermon was about the devil's offspring or the devil's seed. And I left us suspensefully in Genesis 6 and 7 with God's catastrophic judgment of a worldwide flood to wipe out all the sinful corruptions of the Nephilim.

These were the race of giants that had fallen angels for fathers and human women for mothers. They are a hybrid race of corrupted human beings that were giants. Now, why did the sons of God, which refers to fallen angels, procreate with human women?

If you recall, it goes back to Genesis 3 15 and the devil's offspring, the devil's seed, and the devil's devices for trying to corrupt the messianic serpent crushing seed that God promised to the serpent, who is the devil.

And not only that, he not only wanted to corrupt the seed, he wanted to replace the seed with his own because he is Antichrist. He is the Antichrist, which literally in the Greek means in the place of Christ.

He's trying to replace Christ and be like the most high, like in Isaiah 14 says in Ezekiel 28. It all goes back to the same thing. And also in the book of Enoch, if you recall. And when we last saw also the New Testament clearly teaches the same fallen angel view.

You simply cannot escape it in the Bible. In Jude 6 through 7, it says that the angels who did not keep their own domain but deserted their proper dwelling place he has kept in eternal bonds under deep gloom for the judgment of the great day as Sodom and Gomorrah and the towns around them indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire or strange flesh.

Note that word term strange flesh in the same way as these. As who? As the fallen angels did. Pursuing strange flesh by pursuing another race of human women. So they are exhibited as an example by undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.

Now there's a direct correlation between the fallen angels and the men of Sodom and Gomorrah going after strange flesh. Men going after men. Fallen angels going after human women. The passage also indicates that the angels what this this is important because this gets missed a lot.

What the fallen angels did in order to procreate with human women. Okay because there's that confusion a lot. Angels don't have bodies right now. They do have bodies but it's very important to make this distinction that the scripture makes.

The answer is in the verse in Jude which says they did not keep their own domain but deserted or abandoned their proper dwelling place. Okay that word dwelling place is important. They basically renounced.

What this means is that they renounced their heavenly their heavenly roles bodies and homes. All three of those. Their heavenly roles their bodies and their homes. The arcane the their domain means their authority.

Their position in heaven. So and they lost their place in heaven because they got kicked out obviously. So or they actually themselves left and were therefore judged. But they rebelled and they therefore did the exact opposite of what God will do for us in the resurrection.

Okay this is very important because God is going to give us heavenly roles heavenly bodies and heavenly homes. It's the exact opposite. Okay now turn with me to 2nd Corinthians 5 to see how the Bible weaves this together.

In 2nd Corinthians chapter 5 we will see an amazingly stark contrast here in Scripture. That I it really answers this question of what happened. In 2nd Corinthians verse chapter 5 starting with verse 1 God's Word says for we know that if the earth the earthly tent which is our house is torn down.

He's talking about our human bodies. We have a building we have a building from God. The same word. A house. Same word. Not made with hands. Eternal in the heavens. It's an eternal heavenly home. For indeed in this house in this body we groan longing to be clothed with our dwelling.

Same exact word dwelling. That the fallen angels left or abandoned from heaven in as much as we having put it on will not be found naked or exposed. Okay for indeed while we are in this tent we groan being buried because we do not want to be unclothed but to be clothed so that what is mortal will be swallowed up by life eternal.

The fallen angels then on the other hand abandoned their eternal life to be swallowed up or consumed by strange mortal flesh. Right? So that's fascinating how the Bible makes those contrasts so explicit for us and it lets us know very clearly what it's saying right then and there.

So that's very important because we now understand more what how they pull this off right the fallen angels pulled it off and now given that all that if God completely wiped away and destroyed the Nephilim in the worldwide flood and locked up the fallen angels in Tartarus that's what Peter second Peter and Jew talk about then why are there still Nephilim Giants after the flood?

The Nephilim After the Flood, Nimrod, and the Return of Giants

Okay this is the big question right this is a big controversial thing. A lot of this is going to get extra spicy again. So many suggestions have been offered to try to answer this question. The most ridiculous one is probably the one that suggests that one of the Giants hitched a ride on the Ark and he just kind of clung on and that's not that's just absurd that's not yeah that's funny but not not not what happened.

Remember how emphatic God was about destroying everything he was emphatic everything was going to die and blotted out wiped out completely just like Genesis 1 1 where it was completely drowned in water and so others like Heizer also proposed that the flood was only a local flood so some Nephilim survived because they were not part of that local it's like that that's just that's a complete undermining of God's Word I mean it's that's just absurdly contradictory to what the Bible says.

That's wrong too. Others say that one of Noah's sons or their wives were contaminated by the Nephilim by the Giants. Now this one sounds a little more plausible but but we got to think through this because the Nephilim before the flood didn't do anything by parts or by halves.

They were all out they went all out right they were utterly depraved so they were all or nothing and they completely corrupted everything they touched so they there was no partial contamination because they completely corrupted everything and the reason God spared the eight was because they were not contaminated because the Nephilim had utterly contaminated and corrupted and wickedly perverted the the whole earth the not just men but creation as well the animals and everything so and spiritually as well as naturally or physically in their unnatural breeding and devouring of humans and chimeric animals that the book of Enoch talks about as well and the Bible so this also appears to undermine God's emphatic categorical universal judgment of the whole purpose of the flood was to wipe out wipe them out to completely blot them out from the earth and all their unnatural corruptions.

So and the passages also that when I just read in Judah and 2nd Peter also starkly contrast Noah and his family with everyone else so as because they were considered righteous and subservient to God while the rest were wicked in every sense like Sodom and Gomorrah completely consumed by their sin and they were utterly depraved and corrupted genetically physically and spiritually.

So 2nd Peter chapter 2 verse 4 says. For if God did not spare the angels who sin but held them captive in Tartarus with chains or in pits of darkness and handed them over to be kept for judgment and did not spare the ancient world but preserved Noah a proclaimer of righteousness and seven others right.

So he did not spare the ancient world but he only preserved Noah and seven others when he brought the flood on the world of the ungodly. Therefore he wiped out the ungodly the godly those who were clean or righteous.

And the word in Hebrew in the Old Testament when God says Noah was blameless is the same word that is used to describe a lamb that is without blemish that has to be perfect sacrifice without blemish without broken bones without any physical defect.

The same way the same word is used to describe Noah and his family because they were unspotted genetically physically from that corruption of the Nephilim. So this obviously is showing now more clearly that Noah and the seven others were not ungodly they were righteous and they were preserved for that reason.

Now they it also says further on in verse 8. For that righteous man we're talking about a lot as he lived among them day after day was tormenting his righteous soul by the lawless deeds he was seeing and hear him in Sodom and Gomorrah.

Then the Lord knows the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trials. What did he rescue. He rescued Noah and his family. They were part of the godly genetically pure and redeemed race of men. So and to reserve the unrighteous the unrighteous by contrast to punishment on the day of judgment especially those who go after the flesh.

Right. Strange flesh in defiling lust defiling lust that also produces defiled offspring who despise authority as well. Who dis the father. The angels who despise the authority of God and left deserted their heavenly home bodies and positions in heaven and home authority.

So now hopefully this is starting to come together more and more now. Okay what else. What other options are there. Others claim that not all of the fallen angels initially crossbred with human women before the flood that some of them waited to procreate after the flood.

So in other words there was a second incursion or an invasion or perhaps multiple incursions or evasions of the fallen angels after the flood. So I started to lean towards this view more and more. This one seemed like the most plausible to me at first but but I was having a hard time reconciling with Jude with with the passages in the New Testament in Jude and 2nd Peter because it states pretty plainly that God locked up the angels.

He locked up. He locked up the angels that rebelled from their proper domain. So all of the angels that left their domain were locked up in Tartarus. They're locked up. They're not. They're not around anymore.