1. Is Nero Antichrist?
  2. Should Christians keep Feast days?
  3. Since God created all things, did He create evil?
  4. Is Polygamy ok?
  5. Why did Jesus fold the linen burial cloth after His resurrection?
  6. Jesus did not create, or drink fermented wine
  7. We do not need to eat meat to survive
  8. The Christian today is considered Israel
  9. The "one God" theory is a lie
  10. Was Peter a Pope?
  11. Was Jesus nailed through the hands or wrists?
  12. Is it ok to eat unclean animals today?
  13. Is is ok to bow before men and kiss their hand?
  14. Is it possible the Antichrist is people with a name that = 666?
  15. Why doesn't God do the mighty miracles as He did in the past?
  16. Why does God allow people to have disease?
  17. Did God send an evil spirit to King Saul?
  18. Did fallen angels have sex with women to create the Nephilim?
  19. Did Jesus eat fish?

easy fact #1

A Roman Catholic declares NERO IS ANTICHRIST, and he declares Revelation proves this?

"Theodore M. Seeber" wrote:

>And this is coming from a Roman Catholic who believes that Revelations
> Chapter 17 applies to Pagan, not Christian, Rome (and thus was fullfilled
> with the Death of Nero).
> Ted

Basic reality is, there are numerous prophecies of Daniel regarding Antichrist that fall AFTER the death of Nero, the Book of Revelation speaks of Antichrist and his many actions as something that will occur IN THE FUTURE as it pertains to the day the book of Revelation was penned.

Besides the fact that 99% of the prophecies of Antichrist do NOT see fulfillment in Nero. (Yet 100% of them are fulfilled by the Popes) How's it possible for the Book of Revelation to speak of a man named Nero, or any other so called "antichrist" before the book was written when the very first line in this book declares that the prophecies written therein are "things which must shortly come to pass."

Historic FACT is...

True Nero was "an" Antichrist like many Antichrist running around today. But "the" Antichrist spoken of in Revelation. Impossible.

easy fact #2

This question has been brought forth numerous times by 'some' Sabbath keeping Christians.

Basic truth in the matter is that there are actually three feast days of the Old Testament that the Jews were REQUIRED to go to the tabernacle to keep. They were the feasts of "Unleavened Bread, Weeks, and Ingathering." Since 70ad there has been no such tabernacle on planet earth. When the temple veil ripped at the moment Christ breathed His last on the cross...

The common man as well as the priest himself could look upon the ark of the covenant without fear of death because the Lord's presence was now gone from that place as a testimony against the actions of the high priest against Christ on the cross. No longer was the sacrifice worth anything because "Lamb of God which taketh away sin" (John 1:29) was already sacrificed on Calvary. The feast days were a way of declaring faith in the "coming" Messiah. All the feast day rituals and sacrificial offerings prophecied of in a proleptic sense of what actually happened during the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. To keep them AFTER He came to fulfill what they predicted would be an insult to Him by stating what He did on Calvary did not finish the work of Salvation even though He plainly said in His last breath...

For much more on this topic, click here

easy fact #3


A story I once heard would answer this perfectly...

"The professor of a university challenged his students with this question. "Did God create everything that exists?" A student answered bravely, "Yes, he did".

The professor then asked, "If God created everything, then he created evil. Since evil exists (as noticed by our own actions), so God is evil. The student couldn't respond to that statement causing the professor to conclude that he had "proved" that "belief in God" was a fairy tale, and therefore worthless.

Another student raised his hand and asked the professor, "May I pose a question? " "Of course" answered the professor. The young student stood up and asked : "Professor does Cold exists?" The professor answered, "What kind of question is that?...Of course the cold exists... haven't you ever been cold?" The young student answered, "In fact sir, Cold does not exist. According to the laws of Physics, what we consider cold, in fact is the absence of heat. Anything is able to be studied as long as it transmits energy (heat). Absolute Zero is the total absence of heat, but cold does not exist. What we have done is create a term to describe how we feel if we don't have body heat or we are not hot." "And, does Dark exist?", he continued. The professor answered "Of course". This time the student responded, "Again you're wrong, Sir. Darkness does not exist either. Darkness is in fact simply the absence of light. Light can be studied, darkness can not. Darkness cannot be broken down. A simple ray of light tears the darkness and illuminates the surface where the! light beam finishes. Dark is a term that we humans have created to describe what happens when there's lack of light." Finally, the student asked the professor, "Sir, does evil exist?" The professor replied, "Of course it exists, as I mentioned at the beginning, we see violations, crimes and violence anywhere in the world, and those things are evil."

The student responded, "Sir, Evil does not exist. Just as in the previous cases, Evil is a term which man has created to describe the result of the absence of God's presence in the hearts of man.

After this, the professor bowed down his head, and didn't answer back.

The young man's name was ALBERT EINSTEIN."

-author unknown

easy fact #4


God created one wife for Adam. With that said. Do you believe God created all things perfectly? Like bee's are for flowers, flowers open to the Sun, bunnies eat grass, fish swim... birds fly, etc. I am sure you will agree that you see God's wisdom in how He fashioned His creation. If this is the case, then you must agree that what God did in creation week, man cannot improve upon.

After seeing how the custom of multiple wives destroyed men and oftentimes complete nations, you must also agree that stepping outside of the Creator's will in and how He created all things to co-exist would be wrong to do.

easy fact #5


The Bible  takes an entire verse to tell us that the napkin was neatly folded, and was  placed at the head of that stony coffin. Is that important? Absolutely! Is it really significant? Yes indeed!

In order to understand the significance of the folded napkin, you have to understand a little bit about Hebrew tradition of that day. The folded napkin had to do with the Master and Servant, and every Jewish boy knew this tradition. When the servant set the dinner table for the master, he made sure that it was exactly the way the master wanted it. The table was furnished perfectly, and then the servant would wait, just out of sight, until the master had finished eating, and the servant would not dare touch that table, until the master was finished.
Now if the master was done eating, he would rise from the table, wipe his fingers, his mouth, and clean his beard, and would wad up that napkin and toss it onto the table. The servant would then know to clear the table. For in those days, the wadded napkin meant, "I'm done". But if the master got up from the table, and folded his napkin, and laid it  beside his plate, the servant would not dare touch the table, because the  servant knew that the folded napkin meant, "I'm not finished yet." The folded  napkin meant, "I'm coming back!"

easy fact #6


New wine = GRAPE JUICE!
Where does the Bible say NEW WINE is found???

Also keep in mind a prophet of God would never do that which is considered sin. Daniel and his understudies refused fermented wine in their day further proving that fermented wine would never be on Christ's table.

If fermented wine would cause Daniel to defile himself, then it could not have been fermented wine Jesus used to represent His blood at the last supper either. To further verify this fact, notice He also used unleavened bread to represent His flesh. Leaven impermeate the whole lump of bread as sin does the flesh. Christ has no sin and therefore the bread representing His flesh would have no leaven. Fermented wine is nothing more then rotten grape juice, therefore it too could not be used to represent His blood because Jesus was not allowed to rot even in the grave...

Lazarus laid in the grave 4 days so as to glorify God, proving that even a body that "stinketh" (John 11:39) due to four days laying in a grave can and was raised back to life. However, as Science will attest, the body doesn't start to breakdown and actually "stinketh" until the fourth day. Biblical fact is, Jesus was only in the grave three days. So even His blood would never see corruption as Psalms and Acts declared, and therefore neither would the grape juice at the Last Supper be allowed to ferment because it had to represent the blood of a perfect Saviour without sin or corruption. So..

EASY FACT TIDBIT is, the word "wine" in Scripture is used for BOTH fermented and unfermented grape juice.

easy fact #7


The Bible blesses us with proof that the Biblical diet is not only spiritually better for us, it's physically and mentally better as well. Notice...

Amazing how the biblical diet that Daniel and his friends chose was the best thing for their bodies. Yet today we see all sorts of people declaring, "you need the meat for proteins!" However, look at the cow, giraffe, elephant, hippo, or rhino. Or go back a few thousand years and look at the largest animal ever lived. The brontosaurus! None of these animals ate meat! Where did they get their proteins? That's right! In the same place we were designed to get them!

One more thing to note here is that God fed them manna 40 years in the desert because they needed to get HEALTHY before entering the promised land! Manna is not meat.

easy fact #8


  • Hosea 2:23 And I will sow her unto me in the earth; and I will have mercy upon her that had not obtained mercy; and I will say to them which were not my people, Thou art my people; and they shall say, Thou art my God.
  • PROPHETIC STATEMENT REPEATED BY CHRIST (He is speaking to Jews here)


    Also notice what Jesus Himself said to the Jews...


    For much more on this topic, click here to view a 13:53 minute video. Or click here for the text transcript of that video.

    easy fact #9


    Two separate God's are mentioned here clearly. This verse proves Jesus Christ is considered an absolute separate part of the Godhead. The Father Himself (he saith) is calling His Son, "O God" in this passage. This passage also declares God the Father is the God of Jesus Christ as well when it says, " therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness..." Did you catch that? One God is speaking to the other God, saying that "thy God" has anointed Him, His Son! The wording of this passage makes it so clear that there is more then ONE God in the Godhead thereby blasting the trinity theology of "one" God completely and utterly out of existence.

    What about the THIRD person of the Godhead, the Holy Spirit?

    Clearly we see the Holy Spirit is being called God here. Peter exposes the lie "to the Holy Ghost" and then tell Ananias that his lie was actually "unto God" to clarify and confirm the Spirit God.

    For much more on this topic, click here

    easy fact #10


    If Peter was a Pope, then why do the disciples (including Peter) ask Jesus the following question AFTER Jesus already "supposedly" only gave the "Keys to the Kingdom" to Peter?

    1. Matthew 16:18-19, "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.  And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
    2. Matthew 18:1, "At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?"

    In Matthew 16:18 Jesus is declaring Peter as "the rock" upon which Jesus builds His church. The latter part of the passage (verse 19) speaks of the duty of such a church. I go into more detail about this duty on my Confessional page. What I do want to point out is that TWO CHAPTERS LATER the Apostles are asking "who is the greatest..." The Vatican declares Jesus placed Peter as "the greatest" in Matthew 16, yet much later on in Matthew 18 we find this is a lie because the Apostles, of which Peter is one, are asking who is the greatest! If Jesus really did install Peter as Pope, there should be no question in Matthew 18 of this sort. The Apostles never should have asked Jesus "who is the greatest."

    For much more on this topic, click here

    easy fact #11


    tr.v. cru·ci·fied, cru·ci·fy·ing, cru·ci·fies
    1. To put (a person) to death by nailing or binding to a cross.
    -The FREE Dictionary.com

    "For the sake of expediency, the victim was likely affixed to the cross by ropes, nails, or some combination of the two. In popular depictions of crucifixion (possibly derived from a literal reading of the translated description in the Gospel of John, of Jesus' wounds being 'in the hands'), the victim is shown supported only by nails driven straight through the feet and the palms of the hands, which is possible, if there was a foot-rest to relieve the weight; on their own, the hands could not support the full body weight[1].

    Another possibility, that does not require tying, is that the nails were inserted just above the wrist, between the two bones of the forearm (the radius and the ulna). The nails could also be driven through the wrist, in a space between four carpal bones (which is the location shown in the Shroud of Turin). As some historians have suggested, the Gospel word χειρ (cheir) that is translated as 'hand' may have in fact included everything below the mid-forearm. Indeed, Acts 12:7 uses this word to report chains falling off from Peter's 'hands', although the chains would be around what we would call 'wrists'. This shows that the semantic range of χειρ is wider than the English 'hand', and can incorporate nails through the wrist. SOURCE: http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/crucify

    Even Hollywood unknowingly verifies this as fact. Yes they unknowingly show Jesus nailed "in the palms" of the hands instead of the wrists. Yet, whenever they show a Roman soldier "shaking hands" with another soldier they show him grasping the forearm of the man. The "wrist" was considered to be part of the hand back then just as the "palm" and fingers" are considered part of the hand today.

    EASY FACT TIDBIT is such that if Jesus was crucified in the "palms" of His hands, then He would have fallen forward at the moment of death as the weight of His body rested entirely on the nails in His "hands" because He would no longer be alive to support His own weight by standing on the nail in His feet, nor could He support His weight by supposedly clenching His fists around the nails driven through His palms.. Yet, the Bible clearly says when they came to break the legs of those hanging on the cross they found Jesus already dead...

    Nowhere in any of the four Gospels does it say that Jesus body fell forward after death.

    easy fact #12


    Many will say that after the cross of Christ, the Biblical diet changed to allow us to eat all that the Almighty created. The devil has been very instrumental in hiding the basic common sense of this Biblical fact. One question... Did the Almighty Creator RE-CREATE all the people on planet earth so as to make their bodies able to consume foods they were not designed for originally? Or, did the Almighty RE-CREATE the unclean animals so as to make them suddenly edible to us? Seems like a dumb question doesn't it? Then why do so many people choose to believe they can now eat food that is proven dangerous to their bodies?

    Another basic fact is, have you ever noticed the high death rate in the USA due to people eating unclean foods? Everything from cancer, heart disease, strokes, liver diseases, kidney diseases, blood disorders, etc. Ever notice this as well? In countries where unclean food is scarce, people not only live longer, they have extreme rare occasions of all the diseases we see as normal everyday life occurrences in the USA. Is it a Biblical fact that we should not only be prospering in our souls, we should also be blessed with healthy bodies? it is written in

    Fact is, there is New Testament evidence that the Bible Christians did not eat unclean foods after the cross of Christ and some declare. 3.5 years after the cross of Christ, Peter receives a vision of the Lord.

    As we know, the Word says Peter misunderstood the vision in Acts 10:17.

    Because of this misunderstanding, Peter confidently declares to the Lord Himself that he has never eaten anything unclean! However, the Lord keeps saying “kill and eat” and Peter keeps saying no, nothing unclean has entered my mouth! (See Acts 11:8) Again, keep in mind this is 3.5 years after the cross when some say it was ok to eat pork, or other unclean foods. Later on in the very same book of Acts we see Peter contemplates the vision of the sheet, and finally understands it completely. In fact, he understands it so clearly that he then shares with those looking on what it really meant.

    So.. how is it they say you can eat pork after Christ's death, when Peter sees the vision was meant for MAN and not animals?

    One more thing to ponder. How can it be that there were many types animals declared "unclean" by God in the book of Genesis before the flood, these same animals are still declared "unclean" by Peter in his vision recorded in Acts 10, they were still considered unclean in John's vision while on Patmos (See Revelation 18:2) and then Isaiah the prophet describes people that eat these unclean animals that are alive at the second coming to be worthy of death, how is it these animals are now considered CLEAN?

    For much more on this topic, click here

    easy fact #13


    A series of facts regarding conversation I have had over the years with Catholics. By the way, I used to be Catholic as well. Therefore I can attest personally that this is the mindset of the Roman Catholic.

    Catholics agree bowing before Jesus or kissing His feet = worship in Scripture. However, Catholics disagree doing the exact same thing to Pope is worship?

    Why is it when they bow before Jesus and kiss Him in Scripture it's called worship, but when they do this to the pope it's not called worship? You cannot have it both ways. It's either one or the other. Case in point. Look at Shadrach Meshach and Abednego from Daniel's day...

    If you study the story you will find that King Nebuchadnezzar set up a 90 foot statue of gold of himself. He then demanded all in his kingdom to bow to the statue in worship at the sound of the music his court would perform at set intervals. If they refused they would be cast into the fiery furnace to die. On the coronation day of this statue, the king unveiled it and made the oration, wherein he demanded worship, and then the music played., EVERYONE BOWED except the three worshippers of the true God in Heaven.

    QUESTION: If you were alive in that day, would you be bowing before the statue? Sadly, the Catholic would say yes because they wouldn't consider it an act of worship because "in their heart" they weren't bowing in worship, they were bowing to prevent death by fire. However, if it wasn't an act of worship to merely bow for any reason, why did Jesus step out of eternity for a moment to reward the three worthies with salvation from the fire that day?

    If it was no big deal to bow before the statue, why did Satan make the king demand it, and why did Satan make the Roman Catholic church REMOVE Commandment #2 from their Catechism books where it says..

    For much more on this topic, click here to view a 6:55 minute video.

    easy fact #14


    We worship a God of perfection. When He proclaims certain prophetic characteristics of Antichrist, ALL OF THEM can point to only one. You cannot say Bill Gates is Antichrist because "Microsoft Windows" = 666, or Ronald Reagan is Antichrist because his name = 666 and so on. All the prophecies must pertain to one entity alone. For example, do the following prophecies find fulfillment in Bill Gates or Ronald Reagan, or anyone else for that matter?

     All of them including the name that equals 666 can only be attributed to the Roman Catholic Popes. Click here to see all the facts on this...

    easy fact #15


    The question that sparked this answer was, "why doesn't God use the blunt and amazing signs He used in the Old Testament like the pillar of clouds in the desert?" Check out this passage...

    The word "cloud" here is the same word used for "cloud" in the Old Testament when He appeared before the Israelites in the desert for 40 years straight. Strong's Concordance translates the word cloud like this...
    Strong's Number 3507
    nephele {nef-el'-ay} from 3509; TDNT - 4:902,628; n f

     AV - cloud 26; 26
     1) a cloud
        1a) used of the cloud which led the Israelites in the wilderness

     For Synonyms see entry 5866

    Truth is, the Lord is about to use a blunt and amazing sign as He did in the Old Testament before all the eyes of mankind. In fact, it's going to be the greatest sign any generation ever saw. The Word of God says in many places that the prophets and the actual angels in Heaven look with intense interest in what we are about to witness with our own eyes. All of the prophets only saw our day in visions filled with symbols and craved to see it with their own eyes. We will see it first hand if Jesus returns in our lifetime.

    Now I know some are going to say, "but that's ONE major event. The Old Testament has many of them." Yes, that's true. But these are events spread over the course of 4000 years. Most of the people alive never saw them "first hand" like we will. They were only told about those blunt and amazing signs by their parents.

    PLUS, our time period which is called "the end times" is a comparatively small time period. Yet, just before them (as early as 1755) and since it started (1844) has seen literally hundreds of prophecies come true. Jesus spoke of many signs that must happen directly before His return. The "major" ones were to start in 1755 with that global earthquake. Counting back, these blunt and amazing signs started just 252 years ago, and the bulk of them started happening just 163 years ago. Yet, no one seems to know about this. Why?

    The prophet Amos saw out day clearly as possible in symbolic manner. Look around, how many people do you know that read bibles? It used to be EVERYONE (that claimed Jesus Lord) read them daily as little as 100 years ago. Today it's rare to see even in Christian families. That's why no one understands the signs of the times. The Bible says in Romans 10:17, "So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." This strange event is nothing new either. The Pharisees themselves had a problem in this area. Jesus said to them in Matthew 16:3, "And in the morning, It will be foul weather to day: for the sky is red and lowring. O ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky; but can ye not discern the signs of the times?"

    Like back then at the first coming of Jesus, Satan knows there is to be hundreds of prophetic fulfilments in everything from society to nature at the second coming. So he confuses the preachers that do read bibles by giving them re-written bibles so they will be unable to "discern the signs of the times" just like the Pharisees 2000 years ago. These men of God have in turn confused everyone sitting in their pews, and they have confused everyone that doesn't go to church when they approach you at your workplace, baseball games, elevators, plain rides, walks in the park, grocery stores, or front door steps. (like the Jehovah witnesses that were at our home a few days ago) Our generation has seen more prophetic fulfilments then ALL the previous ones combined, but because no one reads or trusts bibles anymore, no one catches it.

    Bottom line:

    I can see children in the Old Testament that have trouble believing saying to their daddies, "Dad, how come the people in the future get so many signs to prove God exists and we only had the one that happened 1000 years ago?"

    easy fact #16

    Absolute truth is such that, if all that is needed as it was in creation is present, then the grass on your lawn will be green. If one element is taken away then the grass will be brown and die. Also, if one element is added that was not designed to be there, the grass will die. Same thing goes for humans. God created man perfectly. Man created pollution, drugs, unhealthy food, anxiety, and other elements that take away from or add to that which was planned to make a perfect baby. And some blame GOD? Why?

    easy fact #17

    Verses in question are...

    It can be easily explained by events that transpired in Exodus. In chapter nine we read..

    Yet in the previous chapter we read...

    Basic Truth is...

    Nothing evil can come from God, nor does He tempt any man to do evil. What happened here is the Love that God offered Pharaoh was the same Love He offered Moses. In Moses' case, this love softened his heart, in Pharaoh's case it hardened it. It's not that God wanted to harden his heart at all. This was Pharaoh's decision. Mankind has free will to believe or not believe.

    Look at it this way. Take a lump of wax and a lump of clay. Put both lumps in direct sunlight on a hot Summer day. What happens? The wax melts, but the clay hardens. Are there two different Suns in the sky wherein one melts and the other hardens? Of course not. The same sunshine that melts wax is the same sunshine that hardens clay. The human heart reacts to love in the same manner. One is drawn by God's love, another is repelled by it simply because some love righteousness and others love evil. In the case of the evil spirit of Saul, It's better understood when you see what 1 Samuel 16:14 says...

    It's not that the Lord "sent" the evil spirit. It's that Saul's decision to be evil caused the Lord to "depart from Saul" and that action "sent" the evil spirit forward. So yes, in essence the Lord sent the evil spirit. But only because Saul made the decision to embrace evil, and the Lord cannot be in the presence of evil, so He departed from Saul." If the Lord never departed the evil spirit would never had been able to approach. The Lord grants all men FREE WILL to accept Him or reject Him.

    Take evil in it's basic form for a prime example. God didn't create evil, it's the absence of God that causes evil to flourish. Check out "easy fact #3" for a true story in relation to this that happened recently that bluntly answers the question, "Since God created all things, did He also created evil?

    easy fact #18

    Some say the "sons of God" are fallen angels, who had sex with women to create the Nephilim, or "giants in the earth." They do all this by using the following verse...

    First, the word "giants" is translated as follows...

    Strongs # H5303
    נפל    נפיל nephîyl  nephil nef-eel', nef-eel'

    From H5307; properly, a feller, that is, a bully or tyrant: - giant.

    It is obvious where the word "Nephilim" came from that is used in bibles other then the King James. However, it appears the proper definition is more apt to be declaring they were bullies rather then men of gigantic proportions. Or "larger then life" as some are called today that are a bit "in your face" in the media or Hollywood. This also shows how the devil can easily distort a single word in the bible to generate a totally different outcome. Back then, the word "giant" had one meaning, today another. This "cultural" changes of language and even slang terms tempt people to use their own understandings to decipher Scripture. The Word of God is thousands of years old and cannot be defined by today's languages without understanding what the words meant to the people in the day it was penned.\

    After researching the word "Nephilim" a little more to close to case on this I found it to be a word adopted via the Apocryphal book of Enoch which was later placed in Strong's Concordance and other bible dictionaries. When the word is examined in all formats (dictionary, Strong's Concordance, Encyclopedias, bible commentaries, etc) it proves the word "giants" in Genesis 6:4 is still better translated as "bullies, cruel, terrible, sinister, felons, etc" Only in man's "opinion" do we here this strange concoction of demonic monsters raping women.

    Using a time sensitive context viewpoint on this we see that when you look at the meek and gentle people of God in contrast to the, fighters, bullies, and felons of the Nephilim, we find they would indeed appear as giants because of their strange and hateful ways that "overpower" the meek. Something the gentle people of God saw as strange and "larger then life" I'm sure. Scientific fact is, before the flood, all people were "giants" in the true sense of the word by today's standard. Men were on average 16 feet tall and women around 14 feet. After the flood, mankind lost a lot more then years of life. They lost their magnificent stature as well. To further illustrate my findings regarding the word "giants" in Genesis 6:4. The Easton Bible Dictionary's first definition of "giants" is as follows... 

    (1.) Heb. nephilim, meaning "violent" or "causing to fall" (Gen. 6:4). These were the violent tyrants of those days, those who fell upon others. The word may also be derived from a root signifying "wonder," and hence "monsters" or "prodigies." In Num. 13:33 this name is given to a Canaanitish tribe, a race of large stature, "the sons of Anak." The Revised Version, in these passages, simply transliterates the original, and reads "Nephilim."

    If you investigate the word "giants " in Genesis 6:4 you will find it speaks more of their "attitude" size rather then their "physical" size.

    One last thing. As many are aware, we have entered into the last days. History is literally repeating itself in the way Jesus described this earth would be today. It is most assuredly like the "days of Noah" is it not? I can clearly see that there are again "giants" in the land when I look around and see people who follow the way of Cain, that are bold in their sin against the Lord. They are again filling the earth with all sorts of sin and violence just like in Noah's day just before the flood. Their actions are of course bringing on their own final judgment as it was in Noah's day. The cup of iniquity is nearing the brim speedily. Man is willfully placing their sinful pleasures above God and His peace. Problem is, there is no "second chance" after this great and dreadful day. When I look around with Christian eyes, I too see "giants in the land."

    As for the "sons of God" in Genesis 6:4 being translated to depict fallen angels. Common sense has to be graphically called upon here to ask the question. "Would God call fallen angels the sons of God?" Some say the "sons of God" are good angels as well. However, Mark 12:25 says we will be like Angels that can't "marry" when Heaven starts...

    So, if the "sons of God" are now good angels in Genesis 6:4, they are now committing adultery and or fornication by having sex with women without marriage.

    Who are the "sons of God" according to your bibles?

  • Romans 8:14, "For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God."
  • Romans 8:19, "For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God."
  • Philippians 2:15, "That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world;"
  • 1 John 3:1, "Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not."
  • 1 John 3:2, "Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is."
  • Does this series of passages describe fallen angels? Or is it describing the followers of God? The Sons of God were the people of God. They sinned in that they took women to wife that God specifically commanded against.

    Also see this study... http://biblelight.net/nephilim.htm

    easy fact #19

    First of all, do a short Bible study and you will find the word "meat" was associated with different types of food. For example, both flesh and baked goods were called "meat" in the Old Testament numerous times. So...  did Jesus eat the fish? Or was it that He was offered fish and honeycomb, but "chose" to eat only the honeycomb.. Please take note that He was also offered gall on Calvary to drink and "chose" not to drink it.

    Just because Jesus is offered something to eat or drink, does not mean He aill automatically eat it. Plus, prophecy did touch on His diet...

    The Presents of God ministry