Prophecy Update Newsletter
IN TODAY'S NEWSLETTER...
Who are the "Sons of God" in Genesis Chapter 6? (Part 3) - Steve Schmutzer -
Part 3: The Origin of the Sons of Seth Theory
In Part 2 of this article series, I looked at the meaning of the Hebrew term, b'nai Elohim as it relates to the account of Genesis 6:1-4. I paid particular attention to the original construct of this term, to its use and derivatives in other parts of Scripture, and to its consistent application and meaning.
I noted it is only after the death and resurrection of Christ that believers are similarly defined. No humans are given this distinction before this point, with the sole exception of Adam who was uniquely created by God apart from any human constituent. This limits the meaning of any Old Testament uses of b'nai Elohim to angelic beings - both fallen and righteous.
Furthermore, angels were created with the ability to manifest in physical form and to interact with mankind and with earthly elements (Gen. 3:24; Gen. 6:1-4; Gen. 18:8; Heb. 13:2). Righteous angels stay within the boundaries of divine laws (Matt. 22:30), but it's pretty clear unrighteous angels have violated those terms (Gen. 6:1-4; 2 Peter 2:4; Jude 1:6).
Considering the consistency of the arguments, Part 2 concluded it is irresponsible to force the b'nai Elohim of Genesis 6:1-4 into a human classification. The protocols of proper Biblical interpretation do not support this choice.
It is why the apostles interpreted Genesis 6:1-4 literally (2 Peter 2:4-7; Jude 1:6-7). It is also why Christian leaders from the very start of church history believed that fallen angels engaged in illicit sexual relations with human women who then gave birth to hybrid "Nephilim" giants. Early church fathers such as Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Clement of Rome, Lactantius, and Ambrose were proponents of these specific views in their own writings.
The historical record is clear enough to suggest that a straightforward reading and interpretation of Genesis 6:1-4 was the official position of the early church up through the fourth century. This is even recorded in volume 8 The Ante-Nicene Fathers.
However, in dispute to a literal and responsible assessment of Genesis 6:1-4, an alternative theory began which has been propagated for much of church history. It continues to be advanced now, with notably strong support for it in the Reformed and Catholic denominations.
This theory springs from a rejection of those practices that humbly seek out and conform to Biblical truth. It is called the "sons of Seth" theory, though it is also known by other names, including the more expansive, "sons of Seth and the daughters of Cain" interpretation.
Its premise rests on the claim that the "sons of God" in Genesis 6:1-4 were ordinary men from the "godly line of Seth," and the "daughters of men" were ordinary women from the "ungodly line of Cain." In other words, the first gender group was righteous and the second gender group was unrighteous. The assumption is they were alike in their physical nature though different in their spiritual one.
This theory argues that the joining of these two genetically homogenous groups of humans produced offspring of such deviant character and unnatural physical proportions that God was compelled to wipe the slate clean.
That's like saying Sally Jones is a God-fearing young lady and she marries Mike Smith who doesn't believe in God. They have a baby who breaks all birth weight records at the local hospital. The event makes the evening news, and Coleman Tents volunteers to design some custom diapers.
The kid grows up to be the height of a house and the weight of a bus, and he's so misbehaved he makes Attila the Hun look like a choirboy. God's grinding His teeth because He can't stand it. He decides to abandon His unchangeable nature (Heb. 13:8), and in a spasm of rage He exterminates the whole family.
I know - it makes no sense, even in a make-believe tale. It also makes us wince if we couch God this way. So why do some people insist this is the position of the inspired Holy Scriptures?
I've noted in my own research that various scholars support this "sons of Seth" theory at the same time as they declare that they adhere to the full Hebrew interpretation of b'nai Elohim. They cannot have it both ways since these two positions are saying very different things. It's like traveling north while arguing you're headed south. That's being delusional.
Unfortunately, this double-minded posture appears far too frequently within Christian circles. Since it emerges from an absence of logic and a presence of pride, I believe it disqualifies the credibility of anyone who adopts it.
While it is already self-evident that I do not hold this "sons of Seth" theory in high regard, I understand others may disagree with my stance. I will share why I do not subscribe to it and why I feel it's challenging to do so.
A question presses here, "Where did this theory come from?" Most records claim that the first official denial that the Genesis 6 b'nai Elohim were fallen angels came from St. Augustine of Hippo (354-430 AD). While some evidence suggests Sextus Julius Africanus (200-275 AD) considered this same position before Augustine's time, it was Augustine who formalized this theory and publicly launched it roughly 75 years after The First Council of Nicaea (325 AD).
Many church leaders which followed Augustine fell into step with his point of view. It's reasonable to assume they were persuaded by Augustine's influence and legacy because human nature was then as it is now. Many pastors today mimic the irresponsible methods and beliefs of prominent emergent church leaders they admire; the situation's no different.
Because Augustine did much to allegorize the content of the Bible, others in his wake did the same thing. He was not the first to treat the Scriptures this way, but he mainstreamed this approach. Where certain passages had previously been handled with a straightforward reading and understanding, Augustine touted non-literal interpretations instead. It's no surprise to me that he supported the errant "sons of Seth" theory.
It is important to underscore the perils of abandoning responsible Biblical interpretation and subordinating the counsel of God's Word to mans' preferences. There are always consequences to doing this.
A sobering illustration of this specific danger is also lifted from Augustine's life. Augustine was a passionate promoter of Replacement Theology, a profane dissent from sound doctrine that flies in the face of the clear Biblical message.
The irony of Replacement Theology is it has indeed replaced true Biblical theology. Its central conviction is that God has replaced Israel with the church - in other words, He moved to "Plan B." This heresy contends that God has abandoned His unilateral, irrevocable, and unconditional promises to the Jewish nation, which by virtue of God's character is not even possible. It further argues that these same promises will now see fulfillment within the church.
Augustine upheld these fallacies by "spiritualizing" key passages of Scripture. He insisted the true gist of certain passages was veiled. He felt the text meant something other than what it was saying - for example, "Israel" means "the church." This departure from common sense and responsible Biblical interpretation permitted Augustine to support whatever alternate explanation his biases preferred.
Replacement Theology became the official position of the church during Augustine's time. His publications on the matter, including his books "The City of God", and his corrosive "Tract Against the Jews," aided this development to no small degree.
Replacement Theology drove many early church leaders in Augustine's wake like Martin Luther and John Calvin to cultivate and publish virulent anti-semitic attitudes. Hitler even claimed he'd found personal inspiration in the views of Martin Luther. History underscores the dangers of reading into God's Word what's not there in the first place.
Replacement Theology provides a reality check to the present "sons of Seth" discussion. To suggest it's not a bad thing to spiritualize "this or that" passage as many proponents of the "sons of Seth" theory admit they're doing, is to display arrogance within the very act of altering Biblical intent.
There are consequences to distorting the meaning of Scripture and the results are predictable: where truth is suppressed deception is elevated - and where deception is elevated, division and destruction follow. While few such choices go so far as to endorse the horrors of a holocaust as many German churches did in Hitler's time, most of these choices simply expose the immaturity of the individuals behind them.
We must consider 2 Timothy 2:15, where the distinction of being "approved" is measured by the accuracy with which one studies and declares the Scriptures. A decision to refute their divine intentions shows a lack of good judgment and in turn suggests one is "not approved."
D. L Cooper said, "If the plain sense of Scripture makes good sense, seek no other sense lest it result in nonsense." He's right, and with respect to the "sons of Seth" theory, the application of his quote is on full display.
This theory's adherents believe the "sons of God" were good people - that they had some sort of amended constitution which quarantined them from suffering the full effect of universal depravity (Romans 3:23; 5:12). They conclude this from Genesis 4:25-26, where Seth first appears along with the statement, "At that time people began to call on the name of the Lord."
Basically, they think Seth got everything back onto spiritual track. This is a wobbly assumption since chapters 5 and 6 of Genesis indicate the contrary. The genealogical record from Adam to Noah - which includes Seth and his descendants - is a detailed account which features the effects of sin. As the result of sin's curse people continued to die, and over time, corruption increased. It's the same dynamics we see today.
At no point does any Biblical text make the case that Seth's descendants were recipients of God's unusual favor, and that shouldn't be hard for us to accept. Romans 5:12 reminds us that sin entered the world through Adam, and everyone since has inherited the scourge of death because "all have sinned." That includes Seth and his lineage.
Moreover, the word "began" in Genesis 4:26 comes from the Hebrew word "châlal."
"Châlal" can also mean "to profane, defile, pollute, or desecrate," and some translations go with this latter definition at this part of the story. I think it's a matter of rigid personal agenda to insist on the "begin" interpretation when the larger account which follows Genesis 4:25-26 suggests that "profane" or "defile" is the better fit. I think it's more accurate to see humanity's relationship with God eroding rather than they suddenly began worshiping Him.
And just as they see the situation with the good guys, the "sons of Seth" advocates maintain that the "daughters of men" also incurred a nature that was exceptionally marked. But they feel this second group was inclined in the opposite direction - they were bad. Again, the assumption here is that the condition of these "daughters of men" was somehow distinguished as being uniquely depraved, something much worse than mankind's baseline sin nature.
They construct this "good guys and bad girls" position by spiritualizing the facts. Remember, that's insisting something's there in the Biblical text when it's really not. The assumption of the "sons of Seth" proponents is that the "daughters of men" was a special group which was genetically confined to having sprung from the "ungodly lineage of Cain." Given Cain's distinction as the first murderer in human history, it justifies their view to regard him and his offspring with a keen distaste.
John Calvin, through irresponsible spiritualization choices like those he demonstrated with Replacement Theology, makes these assumptions clear. In his commentary, he writes on this issue, "The principle is to be kept in memory, that the world was then as if divided into two parts; because the family of Seth cherished the pure and lawful worship of God, from which the rest had fallen. It was, therefore, base ingratitude in the posterity of Seth, to mingle themselves with the children of Cain, and with other profane races; because they voluntarily deprived themselves of the inestimable grace of God."
This is a bunch of nonsense. It forces the rational mind to ask, "Where in Scripture does it say anything like that?" The truth is, nowhere. No text in the Bible identifies Seth's lineage as being special or extra-dimensional in moral clarity and character insofar as events of this time are concerned.
But - just for the sake of argument - let's run down Calvin's train of thought for a moment. If the "....family of Seth cherished the pure and lawful worship of God" as Calvin purports they did, then why did they make such a horrible decision as he insists they made? It doesn't add up.
Furthermore, if "sons of God" is really a reference to men who descended from Seth, then why doesn't the Bible state it that way? Why doesn't the Bible call them "sons of Seth" rather than "sons of God" (b'nai Elohim) which is clearly a reference to angels? After all, Seth is plainly introduced in the story as a human baby just two chapters prior, and his lineage is outlined in very human parameters from that point onwards.
Moreover, Augustine and Calvin made the claim - as plenty more since them have done - that the Bible designates the "daughters of men" as coming from the family tree of Cain, but where do we see that the Bible even remotely suggests that? We don't! It's not there.
Let this fact land with a thud: Augustine and Calvin - and others like them - have not supported their "sons of Seth" view with any responsible treatment of the Biblical text.
They have not validated their view by filtering it through the original Biblical meaning. They have not affirmed their choice by questioning whether it's in harmony with other passages on the same subject, and they haven't substantiated their position by evaluating its compliance with the development of the context.
The reason they haven't done any of these things that responsible Biblical interpreters do is they cannot do them and still remain where they want to stay. Their decisions steer clear of the enduring proofs of Scripture and are instead marinated with presumption, pride, and prejudice. They want to believe their position is true.
I've thought about this long and hard. This is a strange posture that seems to reside somewhere between ignorance and arrogance, perhaps more the latter as evidenced again by Calvin's commentary in which he further states, "That ancient figment, concerning the intercourse of angels with women, is abundantly refuted by its own absurdity; and it is surprising that learned men should formerly have been fascinated by ravings so gross and prodigious."
Really? Is he serious here?
Was Calvin so blinded by his own biases that he failed to see that every supernatural event of the Scriptures conforms at one level or another to being "...abundantly refuted by its own absurdity?" Apparently so.
Let me put Calvin's partialities another way. John Calvin approached God's Word like it was a buffet. He found something there that God had placed there, but Calvin didn't like it. He thought the idea of fallen angels mating with human women was ridiculous, and so he exclaimed, "Yuck! What's this? I don't want any of it. I can't believe they put that there!"
Rather than humbly submitting himself to the inerrant Word of God, Calvin - like Augustine and so many others - soothed his intolerances by choosing to believe, "It means something other than what it is actually saying." As he'd already done elsewhere, he spiritualized the text so he could disregard the plain truth that was staring him in the face.
When one becomes convinced the Bible does not mean what it says, they sacrifice what is most important to believe in order to protect what they most want to believe. As stated earlier, there is always an agenda behind the refusal to accept the truths of Scripture.
It is of particular concern to me that this "sons of Seth" theory continues to be taught in many seminaries today. While it may seem more comfortable and less controversial than wrestling with the accountabilities of Biblical truth, the subsequent unbiblical assertions of these institution's graduates have introduced a great deal of confusion and division concerning what the Bible truly teaches. I know - I have sat under pastors which have sown this discord.
In Part 4 of this series, we will examine the underlying story within the Bible that Genesis 6:1-4 is a part of. We will see how a proper interpretation of this particular text exposes the greater agenda of these fallen b'nai Elohim of ancient times. We'll see how that agenda played out beyond that point and why it will manifest again in times future to you and I.
The Iran deal and the end of the world - By John Ligato -
President Donald J. Trump's decision to remove the United States from President Barack Obama's disastrous deal with the mullahs in Iran has created a flawed hysteria by the mainstream media and members of the European Union. The media's reaction is predictable. Any action by Mr. Trump results in an opposite reaction. The Europeans' love affair with the regime in Iran should not come as a surprise - they make millions of dollars trading with Tehran. But it's a tenuous relationship similar to a scorpion who bites an acquaintance who then acts surprised that the scorpion would turn treacherous.
The Iran deal, which was never ratified by the Senate as a treaty, makes it a diplomatic farce. The Obama administration, in a 2015 letter to then-Congressman Mike Pompeo, made it clear that the deal was a political commitment made by Mr. Obama. It was never a "signed document." The Iranian parliament never intended to vote on the agreement since Iranians were too busy screaming, "death to America." It wasn't worth the paper is was written on.
Despite its flimsy legal status, the agreement was a dramatic shift in policy for the Middle East. The Iranian government's aggressive interventionist foreign policy sent shock waves through more moderate Arab countries that were dumbfounded the American government would embolden Iran and its plan to expand its Islamic revolution throughout the Middle East.
The fear of Iran has overtaken the hatred of Israel as a driving force for Middle East diplomacy. Egypt, Saudi Arabia and other nations have quietly forged a working relationship with the Israeli government as a way to limiting Iran's power and influence in the region. In fact, Mr. Trump's policy reversal was applauded not only in Jerusalem but in many Arab capitals.
Yet our European allies, particularly the Germans, continue to hold hands with the Iranians and now other Arab countries are responding. Saudi Prince Muhammad bin Salman recently took steps to freeze new business with Germany, despite the Kingdom's nearly $8 billion worth of exports sent to Berlin. The Germans have decided that protecting its industry is more important than protecting peace in the region.
The European Union exported more than $13 billion in goods to Iran in 2017, a 66 percent increase from the days before Mr. Obama's promise to help the Iranian economy. German companies, particularly Siemens Corp., for instance, had a booming business in Iran. In 2016, the Germans shipped more than 3 billion euros worth of goods and services to the Iranian regime. British exports were also increasing before Mr. Trump pulled the plug.
Siemens, which was preparing to ship three gas turbines to Iran, now has forced a re-evaluation of its industrial policy with the mullahs. Yet, the politicians of the European Union continue to bang the drum not only for Siemens but for other of their industrial giants like Airbus.
As we can see, the impact of the Trump administration decision to re-isolate the Iranian regime is having its desired impact. Despite lobbying and political pressure from the Europeans, businesses recognize that the American market is more lucrative to their bottom line than the Iranian regime. And unlike in the past, when the Arab nations spoke in one voice, we now have allies in nations like Saudi Arabia that agree Iran is a danger to peace.
Nearing Midnight: Commiserating with Lot - Terry James -
The story of Sodom and Gomorrah is the story of a man-but it is much more. It is a story of mankind.
The man is Abraham's nephew, Lot, who chose to take the greener pasture when his uncle gave him the choice. That greener pasture was, of course, the land of Sodom and Gomorrah. It was much more appealing in lushness and the entertainment and other attractions it apparently offered.
The story of Lot, of Sodom and Gomorrah, is also a dramatic picture of all of mankind in its fallen state. The story foreshadows how the human race always chooses the ways of the world that take people farther and farther from their Creator.
Lot, despite being among the lost, debauched thousands of Sodom, was nonetheless considered righteous in the eyes of that Creator -the God of Heaven. There is one thing more we know about this nephew of the great progenitor of the people that would become Israel. Lot was sorely vexed. The story of the sorely vexed Lot can be found in the 19th chapter of the Book of Moses-Genesis.
There, we remember, God sent two angels, first to Uncle Abraham, then to Lot in the debauched city of Sodom.
Here is what the Apostle Peter wrote in regard to our vexed protagonist, Lot. The context is God dealing with egregiously rebellious mankind in righteous judgment.
But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of. And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not. For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; 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; And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly; And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked: (For that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds;) The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished: But chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government. Presumptuous are they, self-willed, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities. (2 Peter 2:1-10)
Now, Peter points out-under divine inspiration and without any doubt-that ol' Lot was indeed vexed. The definition of vexed in one instance is the state of being extremely irritated or frustrated to the point of a sense of being oppressed.
I use the word sorely, because it has always been a KJV term that amuses me. Some in biblical stories, for example, have been described as "sore afraid."
I have no doubt that Lot, living among these ravenously homosexual men who threatened the angels who came into Sodom, was not only vexed, but sorely vexed.
Now, I want to say here that while watching things going on all around us in today's society and culture I am sorely vexed. It seems that fully half of the American people are immersed in activity that can be construed as anti-God. Government, media-both news and entertainment-seem bent on tearing down most every moral pillar to which our national life used to be tethered. And, we who oppose that tearing down are called the irrational, ignorant morons that are holding up progress.
We who think boys, not girls, should be Boy Scouts, who believe males should not be allowed in restrooms that are designated for females, who hold that God knows best when saying that marriage should be between a man and a woman, not a man and a man or a woman and a woman, are hated and vilified. Those doing the vilification and hating see themselves as the supreme moralists. And, their side has the public airwaves for the most part. They have Satan's propaganda machinery that, without ceasing, preaches their Sodom and Gomorrah-like comportment as being the way life is meant to be lived.
This being the case, all of my vexation instantly turns to a shudder of realization when thinking on the future for those in such rebellion. The words issued by Peter above are yet-perhaps very soon-to once again come to fulfillment.
The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished: But chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government.
Sign of the Times? Thousands Willingly Microchipping Their Hands - Michael Snyder -
The future is coming, and it is going to look very strange. In the past, many authors had raised the possibility of tyrannical governments forcibly microchipping their own populations someday, but what if most of humanity actually embraces this new technology enthusiastically?
Today, thousands of people in Sweden are eagerly having microchips inserted into their own hands, and it is rapidly becoming a natural part of society. Even in the United States, at one time there was great resistance to the idea of microchipping our pets, but now it is almost universally accepted. Personal microchips are being promoted as a way to make routine tasks faster, easier and more convenient, and Swedish "biohackers" are quite thrilled to be on the cutting edge of this new trend:
Thousands of people in Sweden have inserted microchips, which can function as contactless credit cards, key cards and even rail cards, into their bodies. Once the chip is underneath your skin, there is no longer any need to worry about misplacing a card or carrying a heavy wallet. But for many people, the idea of carrying a microchip in their body feels more dystopian than practical.
Some have suggested that Sweden's strong welfare state may be the cause of this recent trend. But actually, the factors behind why roughly 3,500 Swedes have had microchips implanted in them are more complex than you might expect. This phenomenon reflects Sweden's unique biohacking scene. If you look underneath the surface, Sweden's love affair with all things digital goes much deeper than these microchips.
Personally, I will never have a microchip inserted into my hand, but others desire to go far beyond something as simple as that. In Sweden, vast numbers of young people have embraced the idea that we can use technology to make humanity better, and that is why most Swedish "biohackers" are also involved in the transhumanist movement:
Swedish biohackers are generally part of the transhumanist movement. And it is the transhumanists-or more specifically the subgroup "grinders"-who have been inserting NFC chips somewhere between the thumb and the index finger of thousands of Swedes. These are the same microchips that have been used for decades to track animals and packages.
Sweden has been a hotbed for transhumanism for a very long time. In fact, a prominent transhumanist foundation known as "Humanity+" was co-founded by a Swedish man named Nick Bostrom in 1998.
If you start looking into this movement, you will quickly discover that the word "transhuman" literally means "beyond human." Transhumanists believe that it is time for humanity to take control of our own evolution. By editing our DNA and merging with technology, they believe that "post-humans" can become far superior to the humans of today.
Just imagine the draw that this could have for some people as this type of technology begins to take off. Do you think that there are some young people out there that would be eager to have "superhuman powers" and radically extended lifespans? On a broader societal level, we will be told that fixing humanity's "flaws" could ultimately mean the eradication of all sickness, disease, poverty and war.
Who wouldn't want that?
In the end, the goal would be to essentially become our own "gods." Just consider the following excerpt from a recent article in The Guardian:
The aims of the transhumanist movement are summed up by Mark O'Connell in his book To Be a Machine, which last week won the Wellcome Book prize. "It is their belief that we can and should eradicate aging as a cause of death; that we can and should use technology to augment our bodies and our minds; that we can and should merge with machines, remaking ourselves, finally, in the image of our own higher ideals."
The idea of technologically enhancing our bodies is not new. But the extent to which transhumanists take the concept is. In the past, we made devices such as wooden legs, hearing aids, spectacles and false teeth. In future, we might use implants to augment our senses so we can detect infrared or ultraviolet radiation directly or boost our cognitive processes by connecting ourselves to memory chips. Ultimately, by merging man and machine, science will produce humans who have vastly increased intelligence, strength and lifespans; a near embodiment of gods.
If you resist this movement, you and your children could end up being second-class citizens. You would be weaker, slower and a whole lot less intelligent than "post-humans" that have been "enhanced," and you would likely die much more quickly too.
In fact, one of the primary goals of the transhumanist movement is "eternal life." The following is a short excerpt from an ExtremeTech article:
One of the core concepts in transhumanist thinking is life extension: Through genetic engineering, nanotech, cloning, and other emerging technologies, eternal life may soon be possible. Likewise, transhumanists are interested in the ever-increasing number of technologies that can boost our physical, intellectual, and psychological capabilities beyond what humans are naturally capable of (thus the term transhuman). Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), for example, which speeds up reaction times and learning speed by running a very weak electric current through your brain, has already been used by the US military to train snipers. On the more extreme side, transhumanism deals with the concepts of mind uploading (to a computer), and what happens when we finally craft a computer with greater-than-human intelligence (the technological singularity).
And don't think that all of this is too far away.
In a previous article, I discussed one very disturbing survey that found that approximately one-fourth of all professionals in the 18- to 50-year-old age bracket would like to connect their brains directly to the internet right now.
Many thinkers believe that artificial intelligence will continue to advance at an exponential rate and will soon become far superior to human intelligence.
Once that happens, many transhumanists anticipate that we will merge with artificial intelligence and that this will create a whole new world. Prominent transhumanist Ray Kurzweil believes that we "will become essentially god-like in our powers," and fellow transhumanist Mark Pesce believes that such a merger will allow us "to become as gods."
What I am referring to is a moment in time that transhumanists have dubbed "the singularity." The following is what Max Tegmark, the acclaimed author of Our Mathematical Universe: My Quest for the Ultimate Nature of Reality, recently said about what life on this planet will be like after that event:
After this, life on Earth would never be the same. Whoever or whatever controls this technology would rapidly become the world's wealthiest and most powerful, outsmarting all financial markets, out-inventing and out-patenting all human researchers, and out-manipulating all human leaders. Even if we humans nominally merge with such machines, we might have no guarantees whatsoever about the ultimate outcome, making it feel less like a merger and more like a hostile corporate takeover.
That certainly does not sound like a positive future to me.
At this moment technology is advancing at a pace never seen before in human history, and our society is going to be transformed in ways that we cannot even imagine right now.
The transhumanists are promising to usher in a wonderful new utopia that will be the greatest era that humanity has ever known, but others believe that path will only lead to hell on Earth.
As for me, I like how I was made in the first place, and so they can keep their microchips and other technological enhancements because I don't want them.
Daily Jot: The regressive left - Bill Wilson -
The progressive left wing of America stakes their claim on tolerance. If one does not meet their moving standards of tolerance to illegal immigrants, homosexuals, bisexuals, transsexuals, transgenders, women wearing vagina hats, cop-haters, women who want the right to kill their babies in the womb, radical Muslims, banning guns, not respecting the flag, and more, you are immediately labeled a bigot, racist, misogynist, homophobe, Islamophobe, Nazi, extremist, and more. The day has come in this country where you cannot respectfully disagree with the left's brand of moralism, and not be tagged as some really bad person-one, as Congresswoman Maxine Waters (D-CA) says, is not welcome anywhere.
When we think of how long people struggled to make this a country where anyone of any color, background, religion, or ethnicity could be served in a restaurant, or sit in the seat of their choice on public transportation, or drink from a public water fountain, is it not regressive to demand that people who are just trying to enforce the law, perhaps believe differently than the left about morals, human sexuality, or when life begins, be not allowed to eat in a public restaurant? The standard for forcing someone to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding if their religion prevents them from doing so changes when someone who disagrees with a political stance on homosexuality wants to eat at a restaurant.
Who are the real bullies in this scenario? The regressive left cries crocodile tears and gets mob-angry at stories of bullying, but they are the biggest, loudest bullies if one disagrees with them. They demand respect and acceptance, but they are quick to disrespect anyone who doesn't see eye to eye with them. They demand that no one judge them for their beliefs, yet they judge quickly those who believe differently. They promote diversity, yet in the same breath exclude those of a different value system. They demand equality, but deny others the same. They say people must accept and respect the religious beliefs of others, yet they label Christians as uneducated, gun toting, homophobic bigots.
1 Peter 2:7-8 speaks of the Messiah: "Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient...a stone of stumbling and a rock of offence..." Jesus said in John 15:19, "If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because you are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hates you." So you see, those who love the Lord are standing on the Rock of Salvation, while those who love the world see their salvation as standing on their own worldly standard--a double standard. They are misguided from their very foundation, and they hate those who disagree with them. Rather than progressive, they are regressive, moreover, extreme hypocrites.
Daily Devotion: Good Thoughts - By Greg Laurie -
"For I know the thoughts that I think toward you," says the Lord, "thoughts of peace and not of evil, to give you a future and a hope." -Jeremiah 29:11
Sometimes my wife will say, "Let's go have a nice salad." To me, salad is like practice for eating real food. I'm usually drawn to the wrong foods. I don't like healthy things.
In the same way, we sometimes think that if we walk in obedience to Jesus Christ, it will be like going on a diet and eating all the things we really don't want to eat-things that are unappealing.
That is not the will of God. What you'll discover is that God's plans for you are better than your plans for yourself. Here is what the Bible says: "'For I know the thoughts that I think toward you,' says the Lord, 'thoughts of peace and not of evil, to give you a future and a hope'" (Jeremiah 29:11 NKJV).
I love the fact that God doesn't say, "I know the single thought I once had toward you." If I knew that God Almighty had one single thought about me, I would be happy with that. But God said, "I know the thoughts that I think toward you" (emphasis added). It is not a single thought; it is thoughts. There are so many thoughts God has had toward you, they are like the stars in the sky or the sands in the sea. They are innumerable.
Someone might say, "What if they are bad thoughts? What if God is thinking bad things about me?" Let's go back to Jeremiah 29:11. What are the thoughts God thinks toward us? They are "thoughts of peace and not of evil, to give you a future and a hope."
It's true. God does love you. He does have a wonderful plan for your life. So just know this: God's will for you is better than your plan for yourself.
FROM THE HEART
IF YOU HAVE BEEN BLESSED THROUGH THIS MINISTRY, THEN WE ASK THAT YOU WOULD PLEASE REMEMBER PROPHECY UPDATE IN YOUR GIVING - WE ARE TRULY, TRULY, THANKFUL FOR YOUR SUPPORT
Prophecy Update has no corporate sponsors. This ministry is paid for and prayed for by readers and supporters. Without your support, there would be no Prophecy Update, Please pray about becoming a monthly supporter - thanks!
If ever there was a time to invest in God's Kingdom, it's now!
What on earth are you doing for Heaven's Sake?
"Share in the Blessings and Rewards that will last Forever!"
"Folks, it's all beginning to unravel. America is in more danger of falling than at any time in its history. But I believe Bible prophecy predicts this very decline. From this point on, we believers have to get serious. We are going to face discouragement, disillusionment and, most certainly, persecution in the time between now and the Rapture. But don't be discouraged or disillusioned. The coming turmoil will provide us unrivaled opportunities to share the good news of the Gospel. So be ready to share your faith and your hope with those who need Christ. We still have time to reap a great harvest of souls for God's kingdom!" - Hal Lindsey
1) We need your prayers!- We proclaim the Truth of the Word of God and we are under constant spiritual and sometimes even physical attack.
2) We need your encouragement!- We need to hear from you, let us know how the Lord is blessing you through this ministry so that we can share it with others.
3) We need your input! - If you have a prophetic article or story or if there is a news related item we missed, let us know.
4) We need your financial support!- To put it quite simply, without your support, there would be no Prophecy Update.
I ask that you would prayerfully consider partnering with us to get the Word out and keep the world informed. Remember, your gift, no matter how small, does make a difference! You will be helping to touch lives, around the world, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, thanks to the internet your generosity carries a global impact! - Thanks!
Our Prayer for You- "Now he who supplies seed to the sower and bread for food will also supply and increase your store of seed and will enlarge the harvest of your righteousness. You will be made rich in every way so that you can be generous on every occasion, and through us your generosity will result in thanksgiving to God. This service that you perform is not only supplying the needs of God's people but is also overflowing in many expressions of thanks to God. Because of the service by which you have proved yourselves, men will praise God for the obedience that accompanies your confession of the gospel of Christ, and for your generosity in sharing with them and with everyone else." 2 Corinthians 9:10-13
Prophecy Update is a 501 (c) (3) tax exempt - non-profit organization, and all your donations are tax deductible.
If you have been blessed by Prophecy Update and would like to help support this ministry financially. You can make a secure donation online by going to:
Or Visit our website:
Or write us at:
P.O. Box 40516
Bakersfield, CA 93384-0516