Dare I Ask...

[Guest shiloh357]

You still didn't back it up with scripture.

Actually, I used the passage under consideration, itself.

And are you stating that Genesis 6:1-4 is lacking in truth? Is that what you just said?

No I said that the view that the "sons of God" as angels is lacking in truth.

I know very well that there are many documented opinions in the Bible, just as there are many metaphors and parables.

Yes, but the passage is not presented in a metaphorical or parabolic sense.

The book of Enoch speaks more about angels and what they did with "daughters of man". You should have no trouble reading the book(s) of Enoch since, clearly, you're judging the accuracy of part of the cannon.

You demand me to use Scripture, but your view is based on extra-biblical text. That is nothing more than a doublestandard.

God DOES speak outside of the Bible, you know, you can't close Him up in sixty-six books just because a group of people decided to close His Word up in sixty-six books.

Yes, God does speak today, but to put the book of Enoch as being equivlant to the canon is faulty. The Bible has a back cover. You can believe what you want out of the book of Enoch. I will stick the Word of God.

[nebula]

You still didn't back it up with scripture.

Actually, he made reference to more Scripture context than the "angels married women" argument has used. (The text says the sons of God took the daughters of men as wives - not kidnapped and impregnated them.)

Gen. 6

1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, 2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. 3 And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.

Now, if God sanctioned angels to impregnate women, then why does it say after that the LORD's spirit shall not always strive with man, like man had do

And are you stating that Genesis 6:1-4 is lacking in truth?

No, he is stating that the interpretation of individual passages of Scripture needs to agree with the rest of Scripture.

You should have no trouble reading the book(s) of Enoch since, clearly, you're judging the accuracy of part of the cannon.

The book of Enoch was not included in the canon of Scripture for a reason; it is not reliable as God's word. (There's a huge explanation for that, but I don't have time to pull it up. I hope you are aware of the argument, though?)

I would never say I'm good at explaining anything to anyone. If you understood what I meant, it's because God had to show you what I meant. Consider yourself lucky to have such a great Teacher guiding you.

None, you said God was seeing through the eyes of the angels, did you not? What point would there be for God to do this?

[None]

You still didn't back it up with scripture.

Actually, I used the passage under consideration, itself.

And are you stating that Genesis 6:1-4 is lacking in truth? Is that what you just said?

No I said that the view that the "sons of God" as angels is lacking in truth.

I know very well that there are many documented opinions in the Bible, just as there are many metaphors and parables.

Yes, but the passage is not presented in a metaphorical or parabolic sense.

The book of Enoch speaks more about angels and what they did with "daughters of man". You should have no trouble reading the book(s) of Enoch since, clearly, you're judging the accuracy of part of the cannon.

You demand me to use Scripture, but your view is based on extra-biblical text. That is nothing more than a doublestandard.

God DOES speak outside of the Bible, you know, you can't close Him up in sixty-six books just because a group of people decided to close His Word up in sixty-six books.

Yes, God does speak today, but to put the book of Enoch as being equivlant to the canon is faulty. The Bible has a back cover. You can believe what you want out of the book of Enoch. I will stick the Word of God.

Then you have to believe that the angels mated with human women.

Genesis 6:1-4

1)When men began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them,

2)the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose.

3)Then the LORD said, "My Spirit will not contend with man forever, for he is mortal;

his days will be a hundred and twenty years."

4)The Nephilim were on the earth in those days

[nebula]

None, that does not prove that "the sons of God" are angels.

[nebula]

4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown. 5 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

Again, by the way the text reads, it sounds as if the Lord was not pleased with this union and these offspring.

[Guest shiloh357]

Then you have to believe that the angels mated with human women.

Genesis 6:1-4

1)When men began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them,

2)the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose.

3)Then the LORD said, "My Spirit will not contend with man forever, for he is mortal;

his days will be a hundred and twenty years."

4)The Nephilim were on the earth in those days

[None]

You want to hold me to the Scriptures, I will hold you to the same standard.

I don't have to refer to Ezekiel to prove the term "sons of God" meant angels who were NOT sons of man, you can't give me a verse in the Bible that clearly states that the "sons of God" are the line of Seth. That type of thinking leads people to believe there was a people who excaped the sinful line of Adam after he sinned in the garden of Eden which makes no sense whatsoever! That reasoning is what's "flawed".

The book of Jude refered to Enoch's teaching. He quoted directly from the book of Enoch.

You yourself stated that you do not believe Genesis 6:1-4, a part of the "canon", to be the truth.

The only passage that anyone can use is the Gen 6:1-4 to make the case for angels procreating, and that very fact indicates that it is lacking in foundational truth.

That's your "stand" on that.

...the Bible typically establishes a truth in numerous parallel passages.

If you want to shut up God's Word into 66 books because the Council of Laodicea decided that there are things that the common people should not read on their own, without guidance, then you close your eyes and go back to sleep.

One of the books that council of men(not even apostles) took out was the book of Enoch. In it held MANY "parallels" to the points 1)sons of God are angels 2)angels mated with "daughters of men".

Don't try and claim high standards by believing the Bible to be the only Word of God when you turn around and claim that Genesis 6:1-4 is not true. Because it isn't backed by a parallel. Please.

No the onus is on you to prove the term "sons of God" MUST be referring to angels.

Below, you claim you already know what you say I need to prove.

Angels are created beings, and so the term "sons of God" is applied to them only in an ethical sense. Each angel was individually created by God and is not a product of procreation. Angels are not begotten, and unlike man are not created in God's image.

You don't have to bring in the scriptures to back that knowledge, I've seen them already.

I can demonstrate that the term is also used to refer to men in both Old and New Testaments.

Where?

Do you mean after Jesus pays for us with His blood? Because that's the only time I've seen this term fit humans and there are scripture verses to back THAT.

Referring to the line of Seth as the sons of God is to say that they had no need for God's sacrifice because they were sinless.

[Guest shiloh357]

QUOTE(shiloh357)

You want to hold me to the Scriptures, I will hold you to the same standard.

I don't have to refer to Ezekiel to prove the term "sons of God" meant angels who were NOT sons of man, you can't give me a verse in the Bible that clearly states that the "sons of God" are the line of Seth.

Only two lines came from Adam, either Cain or Seth. The Cainites do not qualify. That leaves only option.

The book of Jude refered to Enoch's teaching. He quoted directly from the book of Enoch.

Yes, and Paul in his epistles and in Acts also quotes from Pagan philosphers/authors. Does that mean that their writings are also inspired? Jesus also made references to the Talmud. Does that make the Talmud/Oral Law Scripture?

You yourself stated that you do not believe Genesis 6:1-4, a part of the "canon", to be the truth.

QUOTE

The only passage that anyone can use is the Gen 6:1-4 to make the case for angels procreating, and that very fact indicates that it is lacking in foundational truth.

That's your "stand" on that.

Actually you need to read a little closer. I was referring to those making a case for angels procreating. I was saying that the case for angels procreating lacks foundational truth because Gen. 6:1-4 is the only passage in Scripture they can use to support such an unbiblical doctrine.

QUOTE

...the Bible typically establishes a truth in numerous parallel passages.

If you want to shut up God's Word into 66 books because the Council of Laodicea decided that there are things that the common people should not read on their own, without guidance, then you close your eyes and go back to sleep.

One of the books that council of men(not even apostles) took out was the book of Enoch. In it held MANY "parallels" to the points 1)sons of God are angels 2)angels mated with "daughters of men".

Yeah, anyone can find ways to support unbiblical doctrine but they have to go outside the Bible, which only demonstrates the weakness of their position. Besides, the book of Enoch in commenting on these angels having sex with women, states that they produced giants towering at 450 feet tall. Is that what you believe? 450 feet is 300 cubits. Noah's ark was 300 cubits long. So you believe these women gave birth to giants that would grow to be as tall as the ark was long? The existence of such a race cannot be confirmed either biblically or scientifically.

Don't try and claim high standards by believing the Bible to be the only Word of God when you turn around and claim that Genesis 6:1-4 is not true. Because it isn't backed by a parallel. Please.

I didn't say it wasn't true. I said your ideas surrounding what it says, is not true. Again, you have to prove from the text, it demands "sons of God" to mean angels.

Referring to the line of Seth as the sons of God is to say that they had no need for God's sacrifice because they were sinless.

"Godly" does not equal "sinless." You are trying to imbue your own values to my words.

[nebula]

John 1:12 - But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

Rom 8:14 - For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.

Rom 8:19 - For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.

Philip 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;

1John 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.

1John 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.

If "sons of God" = angels, then these Scriptures state that we who believe in Jesus become angels. Do you believe these Scripture verses to state that?

[Smalcald]

What about life in other parts of the Galaxy? Does our scripture imply or demand that any type of life existing outside of the planet earth is impossible? I am not talking about necessarily intelligent life or human life with a soul, but say an amoeba or plankton or something along those lines?