Things that people mistake as being in the Bible

[Jonathan_Gale]

Was the book referenced in the New testament? Or were the book and Jude both referencing third source? Can you give any evidence that the book "was in the Scripture in the early church"? There's a difference between the supernatural and mysticism. The bible is supernatural, it's not mysticism.

This book was among other apocryphal books, discovered in an Ethiopian Christian community, one of the remnants that weren't wiped out by the muslims. Also, fragments this book was among the Dead Sea Scrolls. Don't take my words for it, go google it yourself.

There's nothing in these chapters that say anything about the sons of God being spirit beings either. Actually, there's nothing in Genesis, or the Bbile, for that matter, that says the sons of God are spirit beings

I've shown you the scriptural evidence, only spiritual beings can present themselves before God, "no MAN can see the face of God and live," Ex. 33:20. Then you perverted the meaning of the word "presence" to fit your narrative, that's not my fault.

Over time they turned from Lord and did evil. Why did God wipe out those He brought out of Egypt? It was because of disbelief. Gen 6 tells us why, they took wives of the daughters of men.

No, it doesn't. That's your racist and classist view. Neither intermarriage between Israelite and Gentiles nor intermarriage between Christians and non-believers is a direct trigger of God's wrath. Paul wrote that non-believers is sanctified by the beliervers through marriage, same goes for the gentiles who are assimilated into Israel through marriage.

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

Firstly, Job may be the oldest book, it may not be. However, it was written after Job lived. It was written about him, not by him. Evidence in the book points to a writing after the existence of Israel, which would be after the wilderness excursion. However, let's consider the events. Abraham's offspring were slaves in Egypt for 400 years. Then they spent 40 years wondering around the desert. It's not likely that they had the opportunity to head to the county library to check out the book of Job. What they had were the five books of Moses. What they had to understand the "sons of God" were the first five chapters of Genesis. In the end of chapter 4 Moses records that Seth has a son Enosh, and Enosh because to call upon or call himself by the name of Lord. Then in chapter 5 he gives the lineage of Adam through Seth. Then he speaks of the sons of God. It's all right there in the context.

This kind of reasoning is fundamentally flawed. First of all, the term "sons of God" itself suggests that those were spiritual beings as God is a spiritual being, you denied it out of disbelief. Also, whether Moses wrote the Torah or not, the author just laid down the historic facts, there were a lot of mysteries and prophecies hidden at that time, but then revealed in the NT. Therefore, even if they did not understand, we do, as we read in retrospect.

In addition, your theology is also fundamentally flawed. Christians are called "sons of God" because we are born again in SPIRIT. When our fleshly being embrace its end, our SPIRITUAL BEING live forever. Therefore throughout the whole bible, only spiritual beings who originate from God are qualified as sons of God, either good or evil.

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

I'm not. I'm just looking at the passage in context, too often a radical idea. I'm not looking to books written hundreds of years later to understand what Moses was saying to the Israelites. Moses' audience didn't have the book of Job, or 1 Peter or 2 Peter. They didn't have the book of Jude. They had the five books of Moses. However, they understood the sons of God, it came from the 5 chapters of Genesis. They couldn't turn to Job chapter 1 or Jude 1 or 1 Peter 3 or 2 Peter 2. They had Genesis. Moses lays out the lineage of Adam through Seth. He then tells us that in the days of Seth's son Enosh, men began to call upon or be called by the name of the Lord. Then he lays out the genealogy of Adam to Enosh. Then he tells us about the sons of God. So, Moses lays out the genealogy of people who are called by the name of the Lord and then speaks of the sons of God. The logical conclusion is that the sons of God are these men who were called by the name of the Lord

So if the NT cannot be used to interpret the OT, then tell me, why is Yeshua of Nazerath the promised Messiah in the OT? Why it was He who died for our sins according to the SCRIPTURES? Just because Moses's readers couldn't turn to Jude or Peter doesn't mean there's no connections.

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

I'm not. I'm just looking at the passage in context, too often a radical idea. I'm not looking to books written hundreds of years later to understand what Moses was saying to the Israelites. Moses' audience didn't have the book of Job, or 1 Peter or 2 Peter. They didn't have the book of Jude. They had the five books of Moses. However, they understood the sons of God, it came from the 5 chapters of Genesis. They couldn't turn to Job chapter 1 or Jude 1 or 1 Peter 3 or 2 Peter 2. They had Genesis.

If this is your reasoning, then why did you use "angels don't marry" to justify your view? It's funny that they didn't have the books of Peter and Jude, they didn't have Job, but somehow they had the gospel of Matthew where this doctrine is found. So other books are only applicable when they are convenient to you, and not applicable when they are not convenient to you.

Also, I had pointed this out before, that angels always appeared as MEN in the bible, so even though angels don't marry in heaven, they can do that as men. In fact, when the two angels came to rescue Lot from Sodom, the gay mob were attempting to rape them, that surely suggests that angels as men were capable of having sex.