Calvin vs. Arminius

[Trust & Obey]

2. In no place in scripture are angelic beings described has having the ability to reproduce. In fact Jesus indicated that angelic beings are in fact asexual in nature (Mark 12:25)

Actually, we have many places in scripture where angels appear as men.

Gen 19:1 And there came two angels to Sodom at even; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom: and Lot seeing them rose up to meet them; and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground;

Gen 19:2 And he said, Behold now, my lords, turn in, I pray you, into your servant's house, and tarry all night, and wash your feet, and ye shall rise up early, and go on your ways. And they said, Nay; but we will abide in the street all night.

Gen 19:3 And he pressed upon them greatly; and they turned in unto him, and entered into his house; and he made them a feast, and did bake unleavened bread, and they did eat.

Gen 19:4 But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter:

Gen 19:5 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.

The men of sodom were sure confident that, given the chance, they would have been able to have sexual relations with the angels. The angels appeared as men, therefore they took the body of men. Therefore, I assume that fallen angels could, at their choosing, take the form of men and come in unto mortal women.

Doesn't Peter suggest something just like this?

Jud 1:6 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.

They took left the angelic realm and came down to earth for perversion. For this, they are "reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Appearing as men is a lot different than reproducing. All Jude says is that they left their habitation to perfert the earth. No direct mention of sexual reproduction. Genesis 19:5 is a statement by the men in the city, not the angels who came

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree, it was a statement by the men in Sodom. But, what reason do we have to believe that the angels who appeared as men lacked genitalia? If they have power to assume the body of a man, with a head, arms, and legs, they why not genitalia?

[Trust & Obey]

[quote name='Bro David

[EricH]

1. Not godly in the sense of behavior, but of the chosen line

"Godly" means to "be like God." Can one "be like God" if they aren't practically godly in their life? Can one be wicked in their life, yet godly? Seems like a contradiction of thought.

[EricH]

True, brother Eric. But the we need to consider the usage of the Hebrew bane elohim. That is the term that matters and that term is only used of angels in the Bible. I would guess that "Son of God" in the NT is "bar theos," or something... different language and a different meaning. The passages in Job clearly reference angels... "and Satan appeared wtih them."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That is actually a linguistic fallacy. There is nothing magical about the Hebrew collocation. Outside the bible "sons of God" in hebrew does not necessarily refer to angels. What you really need to be asking is, does the collocation (or word combination) seem to carry a specific reference to angels by:

1. The author of the literature you are reading

2. Other places in the bible.

3. If it was used that way in other places in the bible, is there any indication in the current text that the author was so limiting it use.

Thats what I am questioning here.

[Trust & Obey]

True, brother Eric. But the we need to consider the usage of the Hebrew bane elohim. That is the term that matters and that term is only used of angels in the Bible. I would guess that "Son of God" in the NT is "bar theos," or something... different language and a different meaning. The passages in Job clearly reference angels... "and Satan appeared wtih them."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That is actually a linguistic fallacy. There is nothing magical about the Hebrew collocation. Outside the bible "sons of God" in hebrew does not necessarily refer to angels. What you really need to be asking is, does the collocation (or word combination) seem to carry a specific reference to angels by:

1. The author of the literature you are reading

2. Other places in the bible.

3. If it was used that way in other places in the bible, is there any indication in the current text that the author was so limiting it use.

Thats what I am questioning here.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Me? Nit-picky? For shame, for shame!

Yeah, maybe you're right. I'm a very "precise" person when it comes to the Word (and in real life too I guess, I'm an engineer).

According to your criteria, the term does qualify under #2 above. Every [other] mention is in reference to angels.

And, the context seems to fit in Genesis with the "abnormal offspring."

Plus, the fact that God wiped out the world is a bit interesting. There must have been something very heavy going on for that to occur.

Some have suggested that the reason "Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord" had nothing to do with his godliness or righteous conduct... not even his faith, per se. But, it could had to do with the fact that him and his family were the only ones alive who's gene pool had not become tainted with the demonic DNA/traits from the interbreeding of the "bane elohim and the daughters of men." That's a provocative idea... can't necessarily be proven by scripture.

[EricH]

True, brother Eric. But the we need to consider the usage of the Hebrew bane elohim. That is the term that matters and that term is only used of angels in the Bible. I would guess that "Son of God" in the NT is "bar theos," or something... different language and a different meaning. The passages in Job clearly reference angels... "and Satan appeared wtih them."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That is actually a linguistic fallacy. There is nothing magical about the Hebrew collocation. Outside the bible "sons of God" in hebrew does not necessarily refer to angels. What you really need to be asking is, does the collocation (or word combination) seem to carry a specific reference to angels by:

1. The author of the literature you are reading

2. Other places in the bible.

3. If it was used that way in other places in the bible, is there any indication in the current text that the author was so limiting it use.

Thats what I am questioning here.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Me? Nit-picky? For shame, for shame!

Yeah, maybe you're right. I'm a very "precise" person when it comes to the Word (and in real life too I guess, I'm an engineer).

According to your criteria, the term does qualify under #2 above. Every [other] mention is in reference to angels.

And, the context seems to fit in Genesis with the "abnormal offspring."

Plus, the fact that God wiped out the world is a bit interesting. There must have been something very heavy going on for that to occur.

Some have suggested that the reason "Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord" had nothing to do with his godliness or righteous conduct... not even his faith, per se. But, it could had to do with the fact that him and his family were the only ones alive who's gene pool had not become tainted with the demonic DNA/traits from the interbreeding of the "bane elohim and the daughters of men." That's a provocative idea... can't necessarily be proven by scripture.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The reason I am suspicious of appealing to the uses you listed and indicated it may be linguistically falacious is that when studying the usage of a word in a particular language (or colloqation) one must be careful, in appealing to common useage to determine meaning.

Language did not develop in a vacuum. Typically when linguists do this type of study, they check first to see if the author they are studying used the word or colloquation. In the case of Genesis the author was Moses. He did not use this term in any other place. They then look at other authors and common useage at the time the author wrote. Again we do not have much. The only other uses in the OT are fropm authors in the future (from Moses perspective).

The fallacy here us to assume Moses would have had the same understanding of a colloqalism from the future. We just cannot assert that. Language typically developes over time, and meaning changes. Colloqalisms are typically very short lived. Similar logic would hold that because those who speak english in the 1980's used the word "cool" to describe a neat person, a writer in the 1700's would have meant the same thing using the word. You are safer assuming that in a reverse way. For instance if a writer in the 1700's used cool in a certain way, you might be safer assuming the writer in the 1900's meant the same thing (given the context allows it), because they would have access to the previous writings. There is also not a good attestation of the usage, making conclusions difficult.

There is nothing in the immediate context to demand a spiritual being, in fact Jesus later teachings regarding angels implies that they are a-sexual and neither male or female. The fact that God destroyed them does not demand a spritual being. In fact the proximity of the geneologies point to the interbreeding as beeing a major issue n God's sight.

The bottom line is that neither of our "suppostitions" are iron clad. They both lean on conjecture at a certain point. It just depends on where you are willing to tke the risks in interpretation

[Guest Bro David™]

The reason I am suspicious of appealing to the uses you listed and indicated it may be linguistically falacious is that when studying the usage of a word in a particular language (or colloqation) one must be careful, in appealing to common useage to determine meaning.

Language did not develop in a vacuum. Typically when linguists do this type of study, they check first to see if the author they are studying used the word or colloquation. In the case of Genesis the author was Moses. He did not use this term in any other place. They then look at other authors and common useage at the time the author wrote. Again we do not have much. The only other uses

[Trust & Obey]

True, brother Eric. But the we need to consider the usage of the Hebrew bane elohim. That is the term that matters and that term is only used of angels in the Bible. I would guess that "Son of God" in the NT is "bar theos," or something... different language and a different meaning. The passages in Job clearly reference angels... "and Satan appeared wtih them."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That is actually a linguistic fallacy. There is nothing magical about the Hebrew collocation. Outside the bible "sons of God" in hebrew does not necessarily refer to angels. What you really need to be asking is, does the collocation (or word combination) seem to carry a specific reference to angels by:

1. The author of the literature you are reading

2. Other places in the bible.

3. If it was used that way in other places in the bible, is there any indication in the current text that the author was so limiting it use.

Thats what I am questioning here.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Me? Nit-picky? For shame, for shame!

Yeah, maybe you're right. I'm a very "precise" person when it comes to the Word (and in real life too I guess, I'm an engineer).

According to your criteria, the term does qualify under #2 above. Every [other] mention is in reference to angels.

And, the context seems to fit in Genesis with the "abnormal offspring."

Plus, the fact that God wiped out the world is a bit interesting. There must have been something very heavy going on for that to occur.

Some have suggested that the reason "Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord" had nothing to do with his godliness or righteous conduct... not even his faith, per se. But, it could had to do with the fact that him and his family were the only ones alive who's gene pool had not become tainted with the demonic DNA/traits from the interbreeding of the "bane elohim and the daughters of men." That's a provocative idea... can't necessarily be proven by scripture.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The reason I am suspicious of appealing to the uses you listed and indicated it may be linguistically falacious is that when studying the usage of a word in a particular language (or colloqation) one must be careful, in appealing to common useage to determine meaning.

Language did not develop in a vacuum. Typically when linguists do this type of study, they check first to see if the author they are studying used the word or colloquation. In the case of Genesis the author was Moses. He did not use this term in any other place. They then look at other authors and common useage at the time the author wrote. Again we do not have much. The only other uses in the OT are fropm authors in the future (from Moses perspective).

The fallacy here us to assume Moses would have had the same understanding of a colloqalism from the future. We just cannot assert that. Language typically developes over time, and meaning changes. Colloqalisms are typically very short lived. Similar logic would hold that because those who speak english in the 1980's used the word "cool" to describe a neat person, a writer in the 1700's would have meant the same thing using the word. You are safer assuming that in a reverse way. For instance if a writer in the 1700's used cool in a certain way, you might be safer assuming the writer in the 1900's meant the same thing (given the context allows it), because they would have access to the previous writings. There is also not a good attestation of the usage, making conclusions difficult.

There is nothing in the immediate context to demand a spiritual being, in fact Jesus later teachings regarding angels implies that they are a-sexual and neither male or female. The fact that God destroyed them does not demand a spritual being. In fact the proximity of the geneologies point to the interbreeding as beeing a major issue n God's sight.

The bottom line is that neither of our "suppostitions" are iron clad. They both lean on conjecture at a certain point. It just depends on where you are willing to tke the risks in interpretation

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Eric, I think the context in Genesis does suggest something bizzare in the relationship between the "sons of God and daughters of men." Since when does the marriage of "a believer and non-believer" create offspring that are so notably superior (physically) as to make mention in the Bible? Then, subsequent to this, God decides to destroy everything with the breath of life in it.

Another thing to consider... we've already seen how God's angels can appear as men. If they can appear as men, then I don't see why they wouldn't be able to "fuction as men."

But, check this out.

Heb 13:2 Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares.

Is not the writer of Hebrews stating that certain people in our midst could very well be angels?

Hmmmmmmmmm.

[EricH]

True, brother Eric. But the we need to consider the usage of the Hebrew bane elohim. That is the term that matters and that term is only used of angels in the Bible. I would guess that "Son of God" in the NT is "bar theos," or something... different language and a different meaning. The passages in Job clearly reference angels... "and Satan appeared wtih them."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That is actually a linguistic fallacy. There is nothing magical about the Hebrew collocation. Outside the bible "sons of God" in hebrew does not necessarily refer to angels. What you really need to be asking is, does the collocation (or word combination) seem to carry a specific reference to angels by:

1. The author of the literature you are reading

2. Other places in the bible.

3. If it was used that way in other places in the bible, is there any indication in the current text that the author was so limiting it use.

Thats what I am questioning here.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Me? Nit-picky? For shame, for shame!

Yeah, maybe you're right. I'm a very "precise" person when it comes to the Word (and in real life too I guess, I'm an engineer).

According to your criteria, the term does qualify under #2 above. Every [other] mention is in reference to angels.

And, the context seems to fit in Genesis with the "abnormal offspring."

Plus, the fact that God wiped out the world is a bit interesting. There must have been something very heavy going on for that to occur.

Some have suggested that the reason "Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord" had nothing to do with his godliness or righteous conduct... not even his faith, per se. But, it could had to do with the fact that him and his family were the only ones alive who's gene pool had not become tainted with the demonic DNA/traits from the interbreeding of the "bane elohim and the daughters of men." That's a provocative idea... can't necessarily be proven by scripture.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The reason I am suspicious of appealing to the uses you listed and indicated it may be linguistically falacious is that when studying the usage of a word in a particular language (or colloqation) one must be careful, in appealing to common useage to determine meaning.

Language did not develop in a vacuum. Typically when linguists do this type of study, they check first to see if the author they are studying used the word or colloquation. In the case of Genesis the author was Moses. He did not use this term in any other place. They then look at other authors and common useage at the time the author wrote. Again we do not have much. The only other uses in the OT are fropm authors in the future (from Moses perspective).

The fallacy here us to assume Moses would have had the same understanding of a colloqalism from the future. We just cannot assert that. Language typically developes over time, and meaning changes. Colloqalisms are typically very short lived. Similar logic would hold that because those who speak english in the 1980's used the word "cool" to describe a neat person, a writer in the 1700's would have meant the same thing using the word. You are safer assuming that in a reverse way. For instance if a writer in the 1700's used cool in a certain way, you might be safer assuming the writer in the 1900's meant the same thing (given the context allows it), because they would have access to the previous writings. There is also not a good attestation of the usage, making conclusions difficult.

There is nothing in the immediate context to demand a spiritual being, in fact Jesus later teachings regarding angels implies that they are a-sexual and neither male or female. The fact that God destroyed them does not demand a spritual being. In fact the proximity of the geneologies point to the interbreeding as beeing a major issue n God's sight.

The bottom line is that neither of our "suppostitions" are iron clad. They both lean on conjecture at a certain point. It just depends on where you are willing to tke the risks in interpretation

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Eric, I think the context in Genesis does suggest something bizzare in the relationship between the "sons of God and daughters of men." Since when does the marriage of "a believer and non-believer" create offspring that are so notably superior (physically) as to make mention in the Bible? Then, subsequent to this, God decides to destroy everything with the breath of life in it.

Another thing to consider... we've already seen how God's angels can appear as men. If they can appear as men, then I don't see why they wouldn't be able to "fuction as men."

But, check this out.

Heb 13:2 Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares.

Is not the writer of Hebrews stating that certain people in our midst could very well be angels?

Hmmmmmmmmm.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

But it does not imply we could have sex with them and bear children. That is a big jump, unless that is your definition of entertainment

[Trust & Obey]

But it does not imply we could have sex with them and bear children. That is a big jump, unless that is your definition of entertainment

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

OH, boy are we going down a rabbit trail.

Sure, it doesn't expressly say so. But, all men that I know can "function as a man." If an angel assumes the body of a man there is nothing suggesting that he would be physically unable to do something that we are physically able to do. I always see angels having MORE power than us humans, even while they are here in the flesh.

And the passage you refer to is not discussing their inability to "function as men" as they are in the flesh of men. Rather, it is discussing the fact that there is no need for marriage in heaven since there is no more death and creation (life).

Luk 20:34 And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage:

Luk 20:35 But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage:

Luk 20:36 Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.

BTW, I've actually heard people use this passage to "prove" that angels are hermaphrodites. It's amazing what some people can pull out of the text.

Anyways, I don't recall saying that they married the woman... I think it was probably more of a one-night stand. I don't think demons are big on commitment.