Matthitjah Posted September 9, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 1,285 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 17,917 Content Per Day: 2.27 Reputation: 355 Days Won: 19 Joined: 10/01/2002 Status: Offline Share Posted September 9, 2007 Grace to you, Antiaging was not treated rudely. His postings were examined according to Scriptural mandate. His posts were examined in light of the Word of God which this Ministry believes to be our sole authority for determining Doctrine. This is from our Statement of Faith; We believe that the 66 books of the Canon, from Genesis to Revelation are the exhaustive, inerrant and inspired word of God. Peace, Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweetycakes Posted September 9, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 8 Topic Count: 162 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 7,858 Content Per Day: 1.13 Reputation: 2,113 Days Won: 0 Joined: 04/21/2005 Status: Offline Birthday: 03/23/1964 Share Posted September 9, 2007 Grace to you, Antiaging was not treated rudely. His postings were examined according to Scriptural mandate. His posts were examined in light of the Word of God which this Ministry believes to be our sole authority for determining Doctrine. This is from our Statement of Faith; We believe that the 66 books of the Canon, from Genesis to Revelation are the exhaustive, inerrant and inspired word of God. Peace, Dave I definitely agree with Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted September 9, 2007 Share Posted September 9, 2007 The verse where it says the we will be like the Angels in heaven, concerning marriage, does not mean that genesis can't be fallen angels, I am not trying to base my opinion on this matter on assumption, but On both interpretations, it is an assumption. Enoch was considered truth in the early church, and Jude quotes it, so there must be some truth to it. The fact that it is quoted by Jude in one place does not give it automatic biblical authority. That is not a stamp of approval on the entire manuscript of Enoch. There was mixed reviews in the church. It would be wrong to claim that it was universally accepted. Again, you are still relying on assumption. I am not relying on assumption. The sons of God are either human or they are not. The angelic view has to be read into the Scripture and it has to go against what the rest of the Bible tells us about angels. This is the kind of back and forth we get into when you have only ONE passage and folks are trying make it say what they want instead of letting the passage speak on its own. One other thing to consider is that the Bible is a progressive revelation. It builds on itself, and so what Jesus said about the angels would be just as true about angels now as they would have been in Gen 6:1-4. Angels are not bound by linear time, and so to say that angels could have been procreating and getting married prior to Jesus' remarks simply doesn't work. Anything you say about angels procreating and getting married has to agree with what the rest of the Bible. This passage clearly states that they married the women and then procreated. What doesn't seem to register with folks is that the Bible uses terms and idioms that it doesn't necessarily explain. It would have been understood clearly in the day it was used, but has fallen out of use and is fairly foreign to us today. If someone finds a letter from one person to another in an archeological did 2,000 years from now, and sees a reference to "Dodgers fans," unless that person is acquainted with US sports culture, it would be a foreign term. We are trying to imbue some mystical meaning to a term that might never had anything close to the meaning that is being supplied to it today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebula Posted September 9, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 10 Topic Count: 5,823 Topics Per Day: 0.75 Content Count: 45,870 Content Per Day: 5.94 Reputation: 1,897 Days Won: 83 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/19/1970 Share Posted September 9, 2007 Nebula, to answer your question, Luke 20:34-38 34)Jesus replied, "The people of this age marry and are given in marriage. 35)But those who are considered worthy of taking part in that age and in the resurrection from the dead will neither marry nor be given in marriage, 36)and they can no longer die; for they are like the angels. They are God's children, since they are children of the resurrection. 37)But in the account of the bush, even Moses showed that the dead rise, for he calls the Lord 'the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.' 38)He is not the God of the dead, but of the living, for to him all are alive." It is only after we are resurrected that we become children of God, according to Jesus' Words. When we "can no longer die" which cannot happen until after resurrection. If we are not children of God now, why did John write: 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. (1John 3:2) Or why did Paul write: And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father. (Gal. 4:6) Both apostles stated that we are sons now, not after we are resurrected. And the angels, the ones who fell from their place, were no longer bound to this law that happens after God considers us worthy, so they did as they pleased and married who they pleased. They had already condemned themselves and were living in sin. Their bodies no longer had the eternal life given to those worthy of the resurrection. Just as Adam's sin caused his body to begin to die, so did the fall of the angels to their bodies. Might be why they decided to reproduce with Adam's daughters. The other poster was arguing that God uses the angels to add genetic material to the human race. This is the argument I was fighting against. The (contestable) argument that it was the fallen angels (demons) that married the daughters of men and had children with them producing the Nephalim is a different argument from what he was presenting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fraught Posted September 10, 2007 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 105 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 1,741 Content Per Day: 0.28 Reputation: 28 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/23/2007 Status: Offline Birthday: 07/30/1959 Share Posted September 10, 2007 i didn't see where it said the fallen angels got married, just that they lay with human women as wives. that's a whole different thing. **antiaging, if you decide to check back, nebula is right, altho this may have happened, (many speculate that was the reason for the flood.) if the human race was polluted by the angelic offspring, the most important fact is that God did not like that happening. this is one thing that is very clear by the account we have. and so, we can conclude that if He did not like it, he would not be doing something like that today. (just trying to make that clear for you) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted September 10, 2007 Share Posted September 10, 2007 i didn't see where it said the fallen angels got married, just that they lay with human women as wives. that's a whole different thing. No, that is not what the text says: That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. (Genesis 6:2) It does not say they simply had relations with them as if they were wives, but that they took them as wives and later procreated with them. The clear indication was that they were married. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eve Posted September 10, 2007 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 34 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 203 Content Per Day: 0.03 Reputation: 4 Days Won: 0 Joined: 11/19/2002 Status: Offline Share Posted September 10, 2007 Perhaps Nephillim are Neanderthals? (edited by moderator - we dont allow links to Youtube) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshua-777 Posted September 10, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 5 Topic Count: 410 Topics Per Day: 0.06 Content Count: 3,102 Content Per Day: 0.48 Reputation: 522 Days Won: 6 Joined: 10/19/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/07/1984 Share Posted September 10, 2007 i didn't see where it said the fallen angels got married, just that they lay with human women as wives. that's a whole different thing. No, that is not what the text says: That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. (Genesis 6:2) It does not say they simply had relations with them as if they were wives, but that they took them as wives and later procreated with them. The clear indication was that they were married. One thing I've realized about this topic, is that the bible doesn't give enough references to come to an ultimate conclusion. Could they be angels? Yes, Could they be the sons of Adam, yes, I don't think we will fully know the answer to this until the end, when we can ask Jesus face to face. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
None Posted September 10, 2007 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 39 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,513 Content Per Day: 0.24 Reputation: 5 Days Won: 0 Joined: 03/05/2007 Status: Offline Birthday: 01/01/1908 Share Posted September 10, 2007 Nebula, to answer your question, Luke 20:34-38 34)Jesus replied, "The people of this age marry and are given in marriage. 35)But those who are considered worthy of taking part in that age and in the resurrection from the dead will neither marry nor be given in marriage, 36)and they can no longer die; for they are like the angels. They are God's children, since they are children of the resurrection. 37)But in the account of the bush, even Moses showed that the dead rise, for he calls the Lord 'the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.' 38)He is not the God of the dead, but of the living, for to him all are alive." It is only after we are resurrected that we become children of God, according to Jesus' Words. When we "can no longer die" which cannot happen until after resurrection. If we are not children of God now, why did John write: 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. (1John 3:2) Or why did Paul write: And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father. (Gal. 4:6) Both apostles stated that we are sons now, not after we are resurrected. And the angels, the ones who fell from their place, were no longer bound to this law that happens after God considers us worthy, so they did as they pleased and married who they pleased. They had already condemned themselves and were living in sin. Their bodies no longer had the eternal life given to those worthy of the resurrection. Just as Adam's sin caused his body to begin to die, so did the fall of the angels to their bodies. Might be why they decided to reproduce with Adam's daughters. The other poster was arguing that God uses the angels to add genetic material to the human race. This is the argument I was fighting against. The (contestable) argument that it was the fallen angels (demons) that married the daughters of men and had children with them producing the Nephalim is a different argument from what he was presenting. The fallen angels DID add to the genetics of humans which was a detestable abomination in God's eyes. Noah's family was, not only considered righteous, but had no traces of this polluted blood. Call it speculation, it doesn't matter, it makes sense. If Adam's blood were able to create super-humans and he passed this down through Seth, Noah would have this blood also. Unless someone were to say that this part of the Bible is simply not true. Calling Genesis 6:1-4 a misinterpretation or anything other than what it clearly states is calling that part of the Bible a lie. Further explanations can be found in books taken out of the canon. That, in no way means that the Bible is not inerrant, it means that there are other places besides the Bible that God's truths can be found. When people get so touchy about reading the books taken out of the canon it reminds me of the "old wineskins" parable Jesus told. If we are not children of God now, why did John write: 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. (1John 3:2) If you haven't noticed, we're still attached to our human bodies, which is technically what the term "children of God" is speaking about. That's why Jesus said "we must be born again". Our bodies are from the line of Adam but our souls have been adopted by God. Hence, the statement: "it doth not appear what we shall be". That doesn' take away from the promise of "what shall be". A woman getting married considers herself married already, yes? In the same way... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshua-777 Posted September 10, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 5 Topic Count: 410 Topics Per Day: 0.06 Content Count: 3,102 Content Per Day: 0.48 Reputation: 522 Days Won: 6 Joined: 10/19/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/07/1984 Share Posted September 10, 2007 I agree with this commentary I found on Genesis 6 1-4 Chuck Smith, The word for today bible. This is one of those areas of scripture I have filed away under "waiting for more information." There are two basic interpretations of this passage. Some see the "sons of God" who had relations with the "daughters of men" as fallen angels who had intimate relations with humans. Others see the "sons of God" as the godly line of Seth, intermarrying with those outside their family. There are good people who hold to each view, and each view has advantages and problems. I frankly don't know which interpretation is correct, so I am just waiting for God to solve the puzzle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts