Even Jude 1:6-7 declares... "And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.
Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire."
The Fallen Angels didn't just go after women,they went after ALL Flesh,even animals...(which is where your 'distorted' idea's Greek Mythology comes into play)
:/
Jude doesn't say "all flesh". When Jude refers to "strange flesh" that doesn't have to mean that they demons had sex with animals. For an angel to fornicate with a human woman would be the equivalent of human/animal bestiality. Strange indeed.
Interesting. So why wouldn't you just start with Christ and salvation? Why the need to allow everything up until Christ came and all the different failed covenants in between?
That's one of the most important questions that you could ask. And it is all about God's sole right to sovereignty (which is the main thrust of the Bible). Here's an abbreviated answer:
Adam and Eve had free will. God gave them one command: Don't eat from this one tree. That tree had no magical properties, it was a symbol of God's right to say what is good and bad. The Devil implied that God was withholding something valuable from them, and that they would become 'like God - knowing good and bad' if they were to eat from the tree. Eve (and later Adam) fell for it. I personally do not believe God chose to foresee that one of his angels would defect and become the Devil (liar) and Satan (resister) - though he was certainly prepared to deal with it. And I don't believe he predestined Adam and Eve to sin (eat from the tree) - though, again, he was prepared to deal with the possibility.
As to the question of why not respond immediately with a Messiah, or whatever means God would choose:
Think of it this way: If a student in a math class were to question a teachers method, what would be the best response? She could either 1) respond immediately - perhaps sending the student to the principles office, or 2) she could give him the chalk and say, "alright, prove it." Which would be more effective? If she sent him to the principle's office the students would be left wondering if the defiant student possibly had a valid point. On the other hand, allowing the student time to make his point would show everyone present the flaws in his objection.
Now compare that to Eden. When the Devil defected and convinced Eve (and Adam) that they could have success by choosing a way contrary to God's will, God was aware of all the millions of angels that were watching. What would be the most effective way to prove the point? Allow Satan's claim to prove false over time.
As humans multiplied and this story was passed along, all of humanity has been given the opportunity to see the consequences of making the self sovereign. In other words, all the suffering we see around us is a result of this, and is proving a point. It's interesting, many people point to human suffering as a reason to not believe in God. I see it as the exact opposite.
Also, no covenants "failed". They were simply replaced. Although the majority of mankind has always been alienated from God, He has always had faithful ones that he has clued-in to aspects of his purpose and means to right the wrongs caused by the Devil and the first human pair. Covenants and prophecy are all part of that.
Like it or not, science has disproven the idea of the world only being around 6,000 years old. Ironically, there's evidence in the Bible that actually would add credence to scientific discoveries, but most thumpers actually have to undo years of brainwashing to see it.
One of the many problems with Fundamentalism.
I'm also of the opinion that someone must accept a gift even when given.
Agreed 100%.
