Welcome!

By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.

SignUp Now!
  • Welcome to Talk Jesus Christian Forums

    Celebrating 20 Years!

    A bible based, Jesus Christ centered community.

    Register Log In

Things that people mistake as being in the Bible

You just keep denying without any alternative answers. If they were not spiritual beings, then what are the gods that apostate Israel turned to, Baal et al? What are the spirits that Yeshua cast out? Where did they come from? If you think those are just imaginary idols people made up in their heads, you're greatly mistaken.
The gods of the nations were demons and Jesus cast out demons. We know that because it is specifically stated. It's not an inference. Paul said the gods of the pagans are demons. Nothing you've presented says the sons of God are demons. We know from Jesus that those who do evil are sons of the devil. We know that angels don't marry. Jesus said a spirit does not have flesh and blood, so how exactly did this mating take place?

I've given an alternative. They were the sons of Seth. Men began to call upon the name of the Lord. This was prior to the evens of Genesis 6. The Israelites were called the sons of God. Christians are called the sons of God. It's logical to expect this earlier group to likewise be called the sons of God .
 
Hello @Butch5,

My response to your posts (replies #83 & #84) in reply #85, is the expression of what I believe concerning these things: and the reference to the timing of the book of Job was raised by you in reply#84, to which I gave response in my reply.

I acknowledge the further points you have raised in defence of your position in regard to these things, but I have no problem with the Biblical record, and am happy to simply believe what I read in regard to these things. So, forgive me if I do not pursue this further.

Thank you
In Christ Jesus
Chris
Hi Chris, I know this idea of the sons of God being demons is widespread. The question is, is it Biblical? You said you have no problem with the Biblical record. I would ask though, did you get this idea out of the Scriptures, or is this something you learned and then was directed to those certain Scriptures?

The difference is huge. Often we're "taught" what the Bible says then shown passages that are supposed to support the idea. The reason this works is because one's mind has already be directed in a certain direction. This makes it appear that the initial claim is validated. That's why we should derive it out of Scriputre. This is why I have continued to make the point that "nothing" says these sons of God are demons. That idea is being brought to the text.
 
Look at the passage. In those days there were giants and afterward. In the days that the sons of God took wives of the women of men, there were giants. That's what the passage says. If the giants were already there when the sons of God took wives from the women of men it's not possible that they could be their offspring.
"Mighty men of renoun" keyword Men. Not hybrids, not spirits, but men.
Alright, then who were those giants and where did they come from? Why did they earn such disapproval from God that they had to be specifically targeted in the conquest of Canaan? If those "sons of God" were descendants of Seth who call upon the name of God, then why did they become so wicked just because they got married?

Your idea of sons of God being "sons of Seth" is not new, it's the orthodox interpretation that had been taught in seminary schools for centuries. In that interpretation, "daughters of men" were Cain's descendants, and their interbreeding with the good sons of Seth earned the disapproval from God. That's an extremely racist and classist view that perverted Christianity and gave it a bad reputation. Love and marry a person from a perceived "wrong crowd" doesn't deserve death.

You suggest that these giants were "already there" as if they were just scenery in the background, and you lecture on me for the keyword "men", but you probably overlooked these other key words, "IN THOSE DAYS". That's the days of Noah that Yeshua warned about, that's the end time, and the giants were a sign of that. God didn't flood the earth for moral superiority or intermarriage. He flooded the earth to wipe out those giants and all that had been corrupted by them.
 
The gods of the nations were demons and Jesus cast out demons. We know that because it is specifically stated. It's not an inference. Paul said the gods of the pagans are demons. Nothing you've presented says the sons of God are demons. We know from Jesus that those who do evil are sons of the devil. We know that angels don't marry. Jesus said a spirit does not have flesh and blood, so how exactly did this mating take place?

I've given an alternative. They were the sons of Seth. Men began to call upon the name of the Lord. This was prior to the evens of Genesis 6. The Israelites were called the sons of God. Christians are called the sons of God. It's logical to expect this earlier group to likewise be called the sons of God .
Your alternative is wrong, it's neither "likewise" nor "logical". Christians as the sons of God will be saved from God's judgement, those "sons of God" got drowned in God's judgement. God does not kill of his own people who call upon His name. He's even willing to spare a whole wicked population for the sake of ten righteous persons who call upon his name.

What I said earlier came from the first Book of Enoch. It's an ancient literature that talked about God, using Enoch as a messenger, sent His words to the fallen angels. That explained the whole backdrop of Gen. 6:1-4 and the absolute necessity of the Flood. Just because it's not in the bible doesn't mean it's irrelevant. As a matter of fact, the two books of Peter and the book of Jude have a lot of references from 1 Enoch, its influence on Peter and Jude were reflected in their epistles. The Bible is inspired word of God, but it's not written in a vacuum with no external connections.
 
For anyone interested in looking more deeply into this subject, here is an article that is well researched and addresses this subject from a, Biblical, historical, and grammatical perspective.

I'll post a different one, Book of Enoch that tells a detailed narrative of these "sons of God", also known as the "watchers". And again, just because it's not in the canonical bible doesn't mean it's irrelevant or false, it was a legit Scriptural book in the early church. "All Scripture" in 2 Tim. 3:16 is NOT the KJV bible, which didn't exist at Paul's time, no NT book existed at the Paul's time, it didn't fall from the sky. What it refers to is a collection of second temple literature, and the Book of Enoch is one of the lost books that didn't make it into the canonical bible. There're a lot of mythical terms in the bible such as "watchers", "Azazel," "Tartarus", also "utter darkness where there'll be wailing and gnashing of teeth", those are all references from the Book of Enoch. If anybody is interested, PM me and I'll send you a copy.

 
'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.
Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh,
.. despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities.
.... Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil
...... he disputed about the body of Moses,
........ durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said,
.......... "The Lord rebuke thee".
............ But these speak evil of those things which they know not:
.............. but what they know naturally, as brute beasts,
................ in those things they corrupt themselves.'
(Jud 1:6-10)

Hello @Butch5,

It is very probable that the book of Job was available to Moses, there is no proof that it was written later. It is believed that Job was the son of Issachar, of Genesis 46:13, and if so would have gone down to Egypt with his father. Possibly born the year after Joseph was born. When he died Moses would have been about fiftyfive, twentyfive years before the Exodus.

* The words, 'took them wives', suggests an intimacy of relation, and that their union was consummated. The angels 'kept not their first estate', and are compared to the men of Sodom, who gave themselves 'over to fornication', and 'went after strange flesh', the words, 'defile the flesh' is also used in this comparison.

* These fallen angels defiled the flesh of the women born to the sons of men, and they gave birth to offspring.
* Our Lord, when quickened into life, while in the grave, went in the spirit, and preached unto those 'spirits' (angels), in prison:-

'By which also He went and preached unto the spirits in prison;
Which sometime were disobedient,
when once the longsuffering of God waited
in the days of Noah,
while the ark was a preparing,
wherein few, that is, eight souls
were saved by water.'
(1 Peter 3:19-20)

* The waters of judgment saved Noah and his sons from the defilement which had come upon those among whom they were living, his pedigree was pure. 'These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect (undefiled) in his generations, and Noah walked with God.'

For if God spared not the angels that sinned,
.. but cast them down to hell,
.... and delivered them into chains of darkness,
...... to be reserved unto judgment;
........ And spared not the old world,
.......... but saved Noah the eighth person,
............ a preacher of righteousness,
.............. bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;
And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes
.. condemned them with an overthrow,
.... making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly;
...... And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked:
........ (For that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing,
.......... vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds )
The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations,
and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished:'
(2 Pet. 2:4-9)

'There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that,
when the sons of God (angels) 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.
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.
And it repented the LORD that He had made man on the earth,
and it grieved Him at His heart.'
(Gen 6:4-6)

* Angels are called, 'sons of God', as Adam was called, a 'son of God', because created by Him.

(sorry done in a rush, very late)
Thank you
In Christ Jesus
Chris

Hi Chris, I know this idea of the sons of God being demons is widespread. The question is, is it Biblical? You said you have no problem with the Biblical record. I would ask though, did you get this idea out of the Scriptures, or is this something you learned and then was directed to those certain Scriptures?

The difference is huge. Often we're "taught" what the Bible says then shown passages that are supposed to support the idea. The reason this works is because one's mind has already be directed in a certain direction. This makes it appear that the initial claim is validated. That's why we should derive it out of Scripture. This is why I have continued to make the point that "nothing" says these sons of God are demons. That idea is being brought to the text.

Hello @Butch5,

With respect, the comparison being made in Genesis 3:1-3 is between 'men' and 'angels', the wording defines them, as 'men', 'daughters of men', 'man' (i.e., human), 'in comparison with, 'the sons of God ' (i.e., angel). Also In 2 Peter 2:4, Peter calls these beings, 'angels', The context of, 2 Peter 2, also makes perfectly clear, with it's comparison with Sodom and Gomorrah, the nature of the offence which took place. These angels left' their first estate'

* The word, 'Demon', has not been used by me. The words used are, 'sons of God', as in (Job 1:6, 2:1, 38:7) or 'angels' as they are referred to in (2 Peter 2:4 and Jude 1:6).

* You have given a link to an interpretation of these things by yet another 'man', who is just as flawed as the rest of us: so why should it be used as evidential of what God has written in His word, when the word of God has explained itself. :)

Thank you
In Christ Jesus
Chris
 
We know that angels don't marry.
This is your inference which is not exactly what Matt. 22:30 says. Angels have free will, just because they are not supposed to marry or give to marriage doesn’t mean they can’t. In Jude 1:6, it is revealed that some angels overstepped their given authority:

“And the angels did not keep their proper domain, but left their abode, He has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgement of the great day.”

In Gen. 6:1-4, these angels did not keep their proper domain of “no marriage”, but came down from heaven to mate with human females, and it caused a disaster.
 
We know that angels don't marry. Jesus said a spirit does not have flesh and blood, so how exactly did this mating take place?

Well, kind of... we know the angels "in heaven" don't marry.

Matt 22:30; "For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.
Mark 12:25; "For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.

Jude 1:6; And the angels who did not keep their proper domain, but left their own abode, He has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of the great day;
Jude 1:7; as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

As we know, some angels left heaven. And somehow, someway... they had sex with somebody. They went after "strange flesh". ( apparently beings of a different race )

Gen 19:9; And they said, "Stand back!" Then they said, "This one came in to stay here, and he keeps acting as a judge; now we will deal worse with you than with them." So they pressed hard against the man Lot, and came near to break down the door.
Gen 19:10; But the men reached out their hands and pulled Lot into the house with them, and shut the door.
Gen 19:11; And they struck the men who were at the doorway of the house with blindness, both small and great, so that they became weary trying to find the door.

We also know that angels aren't always just spiritual, they can manifest physically. They reached out and grabbed Lot and pulled him back into the house. There are other examples of this, but that's
only one off the top of my head. I'm sure I can find more.

It's possible you even met one of these angels.

Heb 13:2; Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for by this some have entertained angels without knowing it.
 
Well, kind of... we know the angels "in heaven" don't marry.

Matt 22:30; "For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.
Mark 12:25; "For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.

Jude 1:6; And the angels who did not keep their proper domain, but left their own abode, He has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of the great day;
Jude 1:7; as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

As we know, some angels left heaven. And somehow, someway... they had sex with somebody. They went after "strange flesh". ( apparently beings of a different race )

Gen 19:9; And they said, "Stand back!" Then they said, "This one came in to stay here, and he keeps acting as a judge; now we will deal worse with you than with them." So they pressed hard against the man Lot, and came near to break down the door.
Gen 19:10; But the men reached out their hands and pulled Lot into the house with them, and shut the door.
Gen 19:11; And they struck the men who were at the doorway of the house with blindness, both small and great, so that they became weary trying to find the door.

We also know that angels aren't always just spiritual, they can manifest physically. They reached out and grabbed Lot and pulled him back into the house. There are other examples of this, but that's
only one off the top of my head. I'm sure I can find more.

It's possible you even met one of these angels.

Heb 13:2; Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for by this some have entertained angels without knowing it.
As you said, some angels left heaven. What in Scripture would lead us to believe that they were different than the angels in Heaven that Jesus spoke of? Jesus said a spirit does not have flesh and blood. Yes, some heavenly beings did manifest in the flesh. However, how do we know that that isn't something that God did in specific cases as opposed to angels having that ability? Maybe they can't manifest in flesh at will, but rather require God to do it.
 
Alright, then who were those giants and where did they come from? Why did they earn such disapproval from God that they had to be specifically targeted in the conquest of Canaan? If those "sons of God" were descendants of Seth who call upon the name of God, then why did they become so wicked just because they got married?

Your idea of sons of God being "sons of Seth" is not new, it's the orthodox interpretation that had been taught in seminary schools for centuries. In that interpretation, "daughters of men" were Cain's descendants, and their interbreeding with the good sons of Seth earned the disapproval from God. That's an extremely racist and classist view that perverted Christianity and gave it a bad reputation. Love and marry a person from a perceived "wrong crowd" doesn't deserve death.

You suggest that these giants were "already there" as if they were just scenery in the background, and you lecture on me for the keyword "men", but you probably overlooked these other key words, "IN THOSE DAYS". That's the days of Noah that Yeshua warned about, that's the end time, and the giants were a sign of that. God didn't flood the earth for moral superiority or intermarriage. He flooded the earth to wipe out those giants and all that had been corrupted by them.
We're not really told a lot about those giants. Regarding marrying, you may believe it's racist, but, Israel was not to marry outside of their nationality. God wanted, and still wants, His people pure and undefiled. Israel was not to marry outsiders because God knew that marrying pagans would cause His people to serve other Gods and turn them away from the Lord.

When the LORD thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and hath cast out many nations before thee, the Hittites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than thou; 2 And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them: 3 Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son. 4 For they will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of the LORD be kindled against you, and destroy thee suddenly.

The Holy Bible: King James Version, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), Dt 7:1–4.

We have examples of this in Scripture.

But king Solomon loved many strange women, together with the daughter of Pharaoh, women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians, and Hittites; 2 Of the nations concerning which the LORD said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall not go in to them, neither shall they come in unto you: for surely they will turn away your heart after their gods: Solomon clave unto these in love. 3 And he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines: and his wives turned away his heart. 4 For it came to pass, when Solomon was old, that his wives turned away his heart after other gods: and his heart was not perfect with the LORD his God, as was the heart of David his father. 5 For Solomon went after Ashtoreth the goddess of the Zidonians, and after Milcom the abomination of the Ammonites. 6 And Solomon did evil in the sight of the LORD, and went not fully after the LORD, as did David his father. 7 Then did Solomon build an high place for Chemosh, the abomination of Moab, in the hill that is before Jerusalem, and for Molech, the abomination of the children of Ammon. 8 And likewise did he for all his strange wives, which burnt incense and sacrificed unto their gods.
9 And the LORD was angry with Solomon, because his heart was turned from the LORD God of Israel, which had appeared unto him twice, 10 And had commanded him concerning this thing, that he should not go after other gods: but he kept not that which the LORD commanded.


The Holy Bible: King James Version, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), 1 Ki 11:1–10.

So we see that these women turned Solomon's heart away from God and he built alters to the pagan gods, which Paul said are demons.

Since the gods of the pagans are demons, of course it angers God if His people are involved with them. God's people are to be set apart. So, when the sons of God married the daughters of men we would expect God's anger to roused.

In the context of the passage, "in those days" is referring to the sons of God taking wives of the daughters of men.
 
I'll post a different one, Book of Enoch that tells a detailed narrative of these "sons of God", also known as the "watchers". And again, just because it's not in the canonical bible doesn't mean it's irrelevant or false, it was a legit Scriptural book in the early church. "All Scripture" in 2 Tim. 3:16 is NOT the KJV bible, which didn't exist at Paul's time, no NT book existed at the Paul's time, it didn't fall from the sky. What it refers to is a collection of second temple literature, and the Book of Enoch is one of the lost books that didn't make it into the canonical bible. There're a lot of mythical terms in the bible such as "watchers", "Azazel," "Tartarus", also "utter darkness where there'll be wailing and gnashing of teeth", those are all references from the Book of Enoch. If anybody is interested, PM me and I'll send you a copy.

I'm familiar with the book of Enoch. It's a second century Jewish writing. One has to wonder how it took 4000 years for someone to conclude that the sons of God were fallen angels. According to the Book of Enoch, the giants were 4500 feet tall. That's almost a mile. They were supposedly almost a mile tall and they ate men. Are we really supposed to believe that?
 
Your alternative is wrong, it's neither "likewise" nor "logical". Christians as the sons of God will be saved from God's judgement, those "sons of God" got drowned in God's judgement. God does not kill of his own people who call upon His name. He's even willing to spare a whole wicked population for the sake of ten righteous persons who call upon his name.
Yet, you just said He does. You said, "those "sons of Gd" got drowned in God's judgment". Sons of God indicates that they are His poeple.
What I said earlier came from the first Book of Enoch. It's an ancient literature that talked about God, using Enoch as a messenger, sent His words to the fallen angels. That explained the whole backdrop of Gen. 6:1-4 and the absolute necessity of the Flood. Just because it's not in the bible doesn't mean it's irrelevant. As a matter of fact, the two books of Peter and the book of Jude have a lot of references from 1 Enoch, its influence on Peter and Jude were reflected in their epistles. The Bible is inspired word of God, but it's not written in a vacuum with no external connections.
I'm familiar with the Book of Enoch. It's a book of myths. It's also supposedly where women learned to use make up.
 
I'll post a different one, Book of Enoch that tells a detailed narrative of these "sons of God", also known as the "watchers". And again, just because it's not in the canonical bible doesn't mean it's irrelevant or false, it was a legit Scriptural book in the early church. "All Scripture" in 2 Tim. 3:16 is NOT the KJV bible, which didn't exist at Paul's time, no NT book existed at the Paul's time, it didn't fall from the sky. What it refers to is a collection of second temple literature, and the Book of Enoch is one of the lost books that didn't make it into the canonical bible. There're a lot of mythical terms in the bible such as "watchers", "Azazel," "Tartarus", also "utter darkness where there'll be wailing and gnashing of teeth", those are all references from the Book of Enoch. If anybody is interested, PM me and I'll send you a copy.

What I posted is a scholarly look at this subject from a, Biblical, historical, and grammatical, perspective.
 

Hello @Butch5,

With respect, the comparison being made in Genesis 3:1-3 is between 'men' and 'angels', the wording defines them, as 'men', 'daughters of men', 'man' (i.e., human), 'in comparison with, 'the sons of God ' (i.e., angel). Also In 2 Peter 2:4, Peter calls these beings, 'angels', The context of, 2 Peter 2, also makes perfectly clear, with it's comparison with Sodom and Gomorrah, the nature of the offence which took place. These angels left' their first estate'

* The word, 'Demon', has not been used by me. The words used are, 'sons of God', as in (Job 1:6, 2:1, 38:7) or 'angels' as they are referred to in (2 Peter 2:4 and Jude 1:6).

* You have given a link to an interpretation of these things by yet another 'man', who is just as flawed as the rest of us: so why should it be used as evidential of what God has written in His word, when the word of God has explained itself. :)

Thank you
In Christ Jesus
Chris
Hi Chris,

Where does 2 Peter 2:4 say these angles are the sons of God? Are you sure you're not conflating two different things? The word angel means messenger. A messenger can be a man or a heavenly being. We have to use the context to determine which it is.

Well, you're human also, why should you use your understanding of Scripture as evidence? Have you done any research into the Book of Enoch? Have you looked at it's claims, it's date of origin, or what it has to say? Have you studied the historical understanding of this book? Have you studied the grammar of the Hebrew and Greek? If not, then the article may be of some assistance as the author has done all of this and more. I'm sorry Chris, I don't mean to be offensive, but I think to simply dismiss the article on these grounds is bogus and an attempt to avoid finding something other than what one wants to believe. Everything we study is the product of a human being, whether male or female. That includes the Bible. The Bible doesn't speak to us and explain what it means. We read it and we interpret it. Everyone does that. You said, "the word of God explains itself". That's a not so. The Bible doesn't explain things. People read it and interpret it "based on their presuppositions". What a person believes influences how they interpret the Bible.
 
This is your inference which is not exactly what Matt. 22:30 says. Angels have free will, just because they are not supposed to marry or give to marriage doesn’t mean they can’t. In Jude 1:6, it is revealed that some angels overstepped their given authority:

“And the angels did not keep their proper domain, but left their abode, He has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgement of the great day.”

In Gen. 6:1-4, these angels did not keep their proper domain of “no marriage”, but came down from heaven to mate with human females, and it caused a disaster.
The word in Jude 1:6 means they did not keep their beginning. They didn't keep the purpose. You're conflating this with Genesis 6. Jude 1 says nothing about the sons of God and Gen 6 says nothing about the angels who didn't keep their first estate. This proof texting to try to make a doctrine. It's not there.
 
We're not really told a lot about those giants. Regarding marrying, you may believe it's racist, but, Israel was not to marry outside of their nationality. God wanted, and still wants, His people pure and undefiled. Israel was not to marry outsiders because God knew that marrying pagans would cause His people to serve other Gods and turn them away from the Lord.
This Sethite interpretation is the real myth, it’s not consistent with any other mentions of “sons of God” in the OT, neither does it explain who those giants are. We’re not told who they are in Genesis, but there’s a lot about them written in the other OT history books. And as I said, if we don’t know their identity and origin, then this lie with creep in, that God promotes genocide based on the Flood and the conquest of Canaan. And now racism is added in the mix.
 
I'm familiar with the book of Enoch. It's a second century Jewish writing. One has to wonder how it took 4000 years for someone to conclude that the sons of God were fallen angels. According to the Book of Enoch, the giants were 4500 feet tall. That's almost a mile. They were supposedly almost a mile tall and they ate men. Are we really supposed to believe that?
First of all, that’s not “second century writing,” it was an intertestamental Jewish literature in the second temple period, you got the basics wrong. Whether we are supposed to believe it or not, many authors of the Bible did believe, there are a lot of references take from that book as I pointed out. Some contents in that book may sound mythical, but no more mythical than seven day creation and supernatural miracles performed by Yeshua.
 
Yet, you just said He does. You said, "those "sons of Gd" got drowned in God's judgment". Sons of God indicates that they are His poeple.
YOU supposed that they were God’s own people because they “called upon the name of the Lord”, not me. And yet they were all drowned in the Flood, only Noah’s family of eight got saved. Doesn’t look like God’s people to me. Aren’t God’s people “not appointed to the wrath”? And again, it doesn’t fit Ps. 82:6-7 and Job 1:6 and other mentions of this term.
 
Back
Top