Noah – The Ark, The Flood, Fallen Angels & Nephilim

Noah's_Ark_on_Mount_Ararat_by_Simon_de_Myle

By Joanie Stahl

{Editors Pre- text Explanation: This post developed as the result of questions sent to Joanie Stahl by Matt S. following a previous article by titled “The Antichrist -Who Is He?” Matt asked some great questions, and Joanie responded with equally great answers! The post begins with Joanie’s answers. To read Matt’s questions that led to these answers – scroll to the bottom, and you will find Matt’s letter with questions there.}

Hi Matt,

I always appreciate those who ask questions. Before I begin, let me first say that I in no way espouse to know it all. But with careful examination do I step forward in my thoughts about these things. So to begin with, let me start with your question regarding the Ark. It’s a very good question. And you are right in the fact that in Genesis, there are no verses that come out and pin point to there being 100 years of the Ark in the making. 

You know I tend to look at the Bible this way. That the way it is written, is written by a very wise and good teacher. I believe   that it is written the way it is to invoke the student to go on a treasure hunt so to speak. Also, it weeds out those that are not interested at all. Proverbs chapter 2:1-8 is the basis. Treasure doesn’t just appear above ground. You have to dig. And the more valuable the treasure is the deeper you have to dig. The deeper you want to dig. So let me now address the question regarding the traditional view on the Ark taking 100 years to build.

First of all the Bible does not really say how long it took, but that it was less than 120 years in the making. We will catapult on these Bible references.

Genesis 5:32, Genesis 6:4 and Genesis 7:6. As well as several others.

In Genesis 6, the Bible says that roughly 1600 years after the creation and Fall of Adam (if you count the genealogies) that God saw that the world was filled with violence and wickedness to such epic proportions that it “repented Him that He had ever made man” in the first place. In Genesis 6:4, we read that God said, “My spirit shall not always strive with man, yet his days shall be 120 years.” But Noah found grace in God’s sight, and it was to Noah that God gave the blueprint for the Ark.

So the question begins. How long did it take to build the Ark?

The traditional view is taken from this passage. That it means that it took Noah 120 years to build the Ark. When viewed upon by post-modern man, the Ark’s massive scale, roughly 450 ft long by 75 feet wide by 45 ft high, it seems that 120 years is an excessive over estimation that it took that amount of time to build the Ark.

The predominant Bible scholars agree that God was saying that He was giving mankind 120 years to repent, after which would come judgment for their wickedness. Which would infer that Noah had 120 years of warning before the Flood. So we can reasonably assume that God gave Noah the blueprints for the Ark at this given time. This would also be when God revealed that a literal type of zoo would be sent to him to preserve aboard the Ark.

What is even more significant, in Genesis 6:18 God makes a covenant with Noah, promising that he, his wife, his sons, and their wives would be saved aboard the Ark. The provocative and interesting aspect of this passage is that Genesis 5:34 notes that Noah was 500 years old when he begat his three sons, while Genesis 7:6 says that Noah was 600 years old when the Flood came. The clear implication is that God made a covenant with Noah that he and his sons would be saved from judgment 20 years before Noah’s sons, Shem, Ham and Japheth were even born.

So the maximum it could have taken would have been 120 years, but it must have taken less to allow time for Noah to load up the food storage and seed that God told him to store on board. And the blatant reality the God made a specific prophecy that the wives of Noah’s three sons would be saved aboard the Ark, we know it took at least enough time for all three of his sons to grow up and get married. And all three of Noah’s sons were not born at the same time. Genesis 10:21 tells us that Japheth was the elder of Noah’s sons, and that he was born when Noah was 500 years old. Meanwhile Genesis 11:10 tells us that Shem begat Arphaxad two years after the Flood and that Shem was 100 years old at that time.

And if the math is done properly, that means Shem was born two years after Japheth. So here’s the point. We have to allow time for all three boys to grow up and get married, and they are not likely to have all fell in love and get married at the exact same time.

The verse in 2 Peter 2:5 that reads, “….and spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly…” is what we need to point out. We know that every word is God-breathed. It is inspired by the Holy Spirit. So if the Holy Spirit decided to attribute the claim that Noah was “a preacher of righteousness” then we have to match it with Genesis chapter 6 and the entire events proper. The world was saturated in sin. God chose a man. That is what His angle is in the whole canon of scripture. He always chooses one man or woman at a time. His plan was initially redemptive. And how can Noah be referred to as “a preacher of righteousness” if there was no sin? We are not told what he said to them. We only know this as a clue to what his work was. Isn’t preaching a work?

So we equate this work as the same work that encapsulates the entire Bible from Genesis to Revelation. And whatever he was preaching about tells us academically exactly what he was preaching while “the Ark was a preparing.”

Let me enlarge on this a bit. I know this is long, but in the best interest of the discussion it warrants this addition.

Let’s go all the way back to Cain and Abel. We know that Cain’s works were wicked and Abel’s works were righteous. From the curse in the Garden, Satan wasted no time in trying to destroy the God’s plan. “And I will put enmity between thee and the woman (Israel), and between thy seed (the Antichrist), and her Seed (the Lord Jesus Christ), and it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise thy heel.” Genesis 3:15.

So Satan knowing this had a critical directive. That is to destroy the righteous line that would bring about “the Seed” (Jesus Christ), that would bring ultimate destruction to Satan’s seed (The Antichrist). So as you go along through the entire Bible you see this feature of Satan doing everything he can to destroy the righteous genealogical line that would “bring forth a Son,” Jesus Christ. So we see that there is always a righteous line and a wicked line of mankind. There had to be.

Hence, Seth took the place of Abel. Don’t forget that Adam and Even knew God intimately. So when they sinned and were expelled from the Garden, they went out. Cain and Seth went onto have other sons and daughters. We do not have proof, but it would seem plausible and fair to assume they did not travel far from the Garden of Eden but remained in the vicinity of the Garden. 

“Therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the Garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. So he drove out the man and he placed at the east of the Garden of Eden, Cherubim and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the tree of life.” Genesis 3:23-24. The catalyst in this is that Adam and Eve without a doubt taught their offspring about God and the sin that caused their banishment. And this teaching followed on through to Noah as being a member of the righteous line of Seth.

Otherwise, how could there be a righteous line that would continue on through thousands of years that brought forth Jesus Christ? Think about that verse, “By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh.” Hebrews 11:4. Also, “And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.” Hebrews 12:24.

So we see the point of the righteous line that was painstakingly preserved. So what Noah was preaching was no doubt taught to him by his parents and their righteous progenitors.

Now onto the question regarding the “angels that kept not their first estate.” I will do my best.

As the population increased rapidly into a godless civilization we see a shocking event occur. “The Son’s of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.” Genesis 6:2.

This polygamous relation was not between the “sons of Seth” and the “daughters of Cain,” which was only an amalgamation of the godly and wicked people of that day. But this had a far deeper meaning. The expression, “daughters of men” includes the daughters of Seth as well as the daughters of Cain, hence the expression, “sons of God” must mean beings that are different from the human race.

The title “Sons of God” has not the same meaning in the Old Testament that it has in the New Testament. The New Testament it applies to those who have become the “Sons of God” by the new birth. John 1:12, Romans 8:14-16, Galatians 4:6 and 1John 3:1-2. In the Old Testament it applies to the angels, and is used five times. Twice in Genesis. Genesis 6:2-4 and three times in Job. Job 1:6, Job 2:1 and Job 38:7.

A “Son of God” denotes a being brought into existence by a creative act of God. Such were the angels, and the same with Adam. and he is so called in Luke 3:38. But Adam’s natural descendants are not the special creation of God. Adam was created in the “likeness of God” Genesis 5:1, but his descendants were born in “his likeness, and after his image.” Therefore all men born of Adam and his descendants by natural generation are the “sons of men,” and it is only by being “Born Again” John 3:35, which is a “New Creation,” that they can become the “Sons of God’ in the New Testament.

Now the “Sons of God” of Genesis 6:2, Genesis 6:4, could not be the “Sons of Seth,” as some claim, because the “Sons of Seth” were only men, and could only be called “Sons of Men,” not the “Sons of God.” This proves beyond any question that the “Sons of God of Genesis 6:2 and Genesis 6:4, were angels, and not godly descendants of Seth.

The further objection is raised on the statement of Jesus that the righteous dead, when raised, “neither marry or are given in marriage….for they are equal to the angels.” 

Luke 20:27-29 reveals that the angels are sexless and therefore cannot cohabit either with themselves or human beings. While the passage implies that the angels “do not marry,” it does not say they are sexless, for that would convey the idea that the righteous at the resurrection would also be sexless. Any other doctrine that would apply itself to any notion of belief that husbands and wives would “know each other” as such would be abhorrent.

What the passage does teach is that angels do not multiply by procreation. Angels were created as far as we know en-masse, and as they never die there is no necessity for marriage among them.

However much we may question the possibility of intercourse between angels and human beings, this account in Genesis seems to teach it. We have further confirmation in the books of Peter and Jude.

“God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell (Tartarus), and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto Judgment.”  

2 Peter 2:4-6.

“The angels that kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains in darkness, unto the judgement of the great day.”

Jude 6-7.

The angels here mentioned cannot be Satan’s angels, because his angels are and have always been free. They are not “reserved in everlasting chains in darkness,” but are to be cast into the “Lake of Fire” (Gehenna), prepared for the Devil and his angels when he is cast in. Matthew 25:41. So then these angels must be a special class of angels, condemned for some particular sin, and when we read the context to these two passage the character of that sin is evident.

It was the sin of “Fornication and going after ‘strange flesh.'” Jude 7. The time of the sin is given as just before the flood. 2 Peter 2:5. It is the same sin that caused the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, whose inhabitants demand of Lot, the surrender of the two Angels that he had received into his home, that “they might know them,” that is obviously, carnal intercourse with them. 

2 Peter 2:6-8, Jude 7 and Genesis 19:5.

The scripture clearly teaches that angels can assume fleshly bodies and eat and drink with men, Genesis 18:1-3. So the difficulty vanishes when we see that the “Sons of God” assumed human bodies and as men married the “daughters of men.”

What the “First Estate” was that they lost we do not know. They may have been some of the angels who had already left their “first estate” of holiness and subjection to God to follow the lead and rebellion of Satan.. But we should not forget that as far as we know, the Garden of Eden was not destroyed until after the Flood, and the descendants of Adam lived in the vicinity of “the Heavenly Watchers,” or of Keepers of the Garden, the “Sons of God” (the Cherubim). Genesis 3:24, who would from time to time, see the “daughters of men,” and that they left their own “Habitation” (the Garden) and mingled with the “daughters of men ” thus going after “strange flesh,” and thus losing their “first estate” as angelic beings and guardians of the Garden.

The “angels that kept not their first estate” are the “spirits in prison” of whom Peter speaks about in 1Peter 3:18-20, and to whom Christ preached, not in person, but by the Holy Spirit, through Noah, in the days before the Flood.

The outcome of this invasion of the earth by these “men of renown” was the Flood, wiping them off the face of the earth, being banished to the 2nd heavens. And the ‘wicked dead,” into Hades.

I know this was a lot. But I always love a thorough investigation. There are so many views out there. And there are so many bent heavily one thing. And as Barak Obama being the Antichrist is easy. The second stage of the Revived Roman Empire is the Eastern leg of the break off of the Western Empire under Diocletian. The Empire had grown so enormous that he could not have full control over it. So he sent a representative over to Byzantium to oversee it. Which is Turkey. And further on is renamed Constantinople by Constantine. There is nowhere in the any eschatological verses that even so much as indicate or allude to the fact that the Antichrist comes out of a Western Coalition of nations. And that means Europe as well as we know it. Daniel’s colossus is the amalgamation of the all the former empires that were conquered. They never went away, they only dissolved into one another as they were conquered. Hence, you get a very clear picture that he will be a man that arises out of the sea (Mediterranean Sea), as well as “the sea” meaning many peoples. The Antichrist government will be an amalgamation of all the former empires into one Beast system.

He is a type of revived Nimrod. Revelation 17:11, “The beast that was (Nimrod), and is not, is himself also the eighth (the Antichrist), and is of the seven (7 heads and ten horns referring to the Ten Federated Nations), and goes into perdition.” So there is no way that Barack Obama can be the Antichrist. It’s an impossibility. And there is no way that any one will say of Obama now or in the future, “Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake the kingdoms; that made the world as a wilderness, and destroyed the cities thereof; that opened not the house of the prisoners? Isaiah 14:15-16. What is happening right now is a huge lack of studying origin and having proper placement of all the parts and pieces that comprise a more accurate assessment of who the “Man of Sin” is and where he will come from. Nothing at all in the word demonstrates that he will come out of the west. The Shiite prophecy regarding “a tall black man” that takes on the roll of a warrior to wage war in their end time apocalyptic views, does not indict Obama. It is, in my humble opinion that this would allude to their Mechidi, the 12th Imam. They are also at this time looking for their Islamic saviour who interestingly has all the exact same features and attributes as the Antichrist. But that is another discussion.

Okay I have gone on long enough. I hope that wasn’t too long. And I hope that might at some point satisfy some of your questions. And better yet, that it will inspire you to dig in for the buried treasures. “For in His is hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.”

———————————————-

Here is Matt’s original message with questions that were sent to Joanie

Hi Joanie

This is Matt from “Aminutetomidnite”. Thanks for allowing me to contact you as I have some questions re your article, that I hope you will be able to shed some light on, when you have a moment.

I read the article that you had Tony post on the “Aminutetomidnite” new website, and really got a lot from it however it also raised a lot of questions for me. I just want to be clear that I do not in any way intend this to be a rebuttal, or criticism, as I really want to know God’s truth, and there is just so much deception out there. I also am very aware that I have had, and undoubtedly still do (unwittingly) harbour wrong ideas/notions, but above all I just want to understand God’s truth. I have found that it is not always a straightforward thing for me to do, (he says, laughing out loud a lot)

I have to say that I really don’t know if Mr Obama is “THE” Antichrist, and I am really not sure that he is, there are just so many who are adamant that he is “THE” Antichrist. It is more my opinion that he is a small antichrist figure of which there will be many. (Same for Donald Trump maybe also)

That is really interesting your point on orthodox Jews not accepting someone from the line of Ham. (I think that Ham also embarrassed Noah finding him naked and then treating him very disrespectfully). So that has sold it a bit for me that the Antichrist will need to come from Shem’s lineage to be acceptable as a possible Messiah (or false Messiah) The Shiite Muslims have a prophecy, that they will have a “tall black man” take the role of a warrior to wage war, in their end of days scenarios.

As far as “the deadly wound to the head” that is interesting, I have not looked at it that way before and on closer examination of Revelation and Psalms, it certainly could mean a deadly attack on an administration or Government. Really interesting perspective, as the common thinking has been that the Antichrist will take a wound to the head. (Starting to look a little like urban myth maybe)

I am struggling with what you say about Noah being a preacher of repentance, there is nothing mentioned in Genesis about this and that is what I base my thinking on in this matter. I need to digest this a little more Joanie, in light of the scriptures you present and do some more study (not ruling this out though). Also it was that God mentioned the word corrupt 3 times in Genesis 6:11-12 which usually means that God is making a very serious statement. Things were seriously messed up enough for God to wipe out everything, except for 8 souls and a very large boat full of animals.

Can I ask where you get the 100 year grace period from for the repentance, prior to the flood? I am struggling to find any reference to this. I know from the accounts in Genesis that speak of Noah’s age and the ages of his sons that there was around 100 years from their births to flood/post flood. I have assumed that it would take these few men a great deal of time to build such a large boat, however that is just assumption my part.

Another question I have is how do you connect the angels of Genesis 6:4 to the angels that God stationed at the entrances of the Garden of Eden? Is there a biblical connection to support this? What does the “first estate” refer to in regard to angels?

Joanie I have so many questions about the nephilim, the rephaim, angelic human hybrids, nephilim/nephilim offspring, human nephilim offspring, and angelic animal offspring. I am really curious if these entities were soulless or just totally abhorrent to God in his creation. Some speculate that rebellious angels became demons, others say that demons are the disembodied spirits of the nephilim/rephaim.

Totally with you on the 2nd heaven being the abode of wicked entities. It is becoming more firmly my belief that we are witnessing an increasing frequency of incursions from this 2nd heaven, be it the UFO phenomenon, literal demonic incursions, sasquatch type entities seem to have very peculiar abilities to just disappear (and many examples come through daily) CERN has had limitless funds spent on it with the purpose of breaking through into other dimensions, what is that about? Not good I suspect.

Interesting difference you point out between the word “becoming” and the word “revealing” with regard to the Antichrist. I think once again this is a key point that would tend to exclude Barak Obama from being the literal Antichrist.

I read another article today with someone adamant that Obama is the Antichrist, so many seem to be picking this up and running with it.

Thanks for your consideration of my questions Joanie

Blessings to you

Matt