Things that people mistake as being in the Bible

[Jonathan_Gale]

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.

The word “sons” in the term “sons of God” does NOT indicate any genetic association, it only suggests that this is a group derived from God and sharing some attributes of God, it’s similar to “sons of freedom”, “sons of serpent”, “sons of thunder”, or even “son of a gun”. Therefore, sons of God, benei elohim, specifically indicates spiritual beings as opposed to “sons of men” or “daughters of men”.

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

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.

At least I let the Bible to interpret itself, you just give your opinion to deny this obvious connection. In your way of thinking, any OT prophecy that subtly points to the messiah has nothing to do with Yeshua of Nazerath because it says nothing about such a person named Yeshua.

 

[complete]

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.

Hello @Butch5,

Yes, I was dismissive of your introduction of the teaching of another: I apologise; but It was not out of a desire to avoid any further teaching on the subject, but just that I believe that the Scriptures themselves tell us enough on their own. I agree that we have to take care not to allow any presuppositions or indoctrinations to influence our understanding, but should search and see what the testimony of the whole of Scripture has to say on any given subject. That I do to the best of my ability.

Thank you
In Christ Jesus
Chris

 

[Butch5]

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.

If we're told a lot about them in the history books then where does it say they were spirit beings? Because, Genesis 6 tells us their offspring were "men" of renoun. Why would Genesis tell us they were men if they weren't?

What's so amazing about all of this is how people will believe myths and fantasies about God's word. It's almost like when people start talking about God, common sense gets tossed out of the window. People will believe that the dead as somehow alive, yet they are dead. There is no proof of this. We can go to any cemetery and see that the dead are not communicating or doing anything. We have Biblical evidence that flatly refutes the idea . Paul says the Fafher alone has immortality. Yet, in spite of this millions believe the idea are alive without the first shred of evidence.

In this instance we don't have anything telling us these sons of God were spirit beings. We have it stated explicitly that the offspring of the sons of God were men. The offspring of men are men. The offspring of angels would not be men. We know angels don't have flesh and blood. We know angels don't marry. Yet, in spite of all of this just the oppiste is claimed. It's claimed that angels do have flesh and bone and that they do marry.

When we see the fist mention of these sons of God Moses makes no effort to explain them. If this was some strange new thing we'd expect Moses to explain. However, if it was a common thing, men marrying women, then we wouldn't expect an explanation. And, we don't get one.

Why would we believe a book writtena t least 100 years after Jesus?

The idea of angles mating with women goes against the evidence we see. We're supposed to be live some legend when we have a perfectly logical explanation, the fits the evidence? I'm sorry, I can't do that. It's these myths and corruptions that have gotten the church into the situation it's in today.

 

[Butch5]

The word “sons” in the term “sons of God” does NOT indicate any genetic association, it only suggests that this is a group derived from God and sharing some attributes of God, it’s similar to “sons of freedom”, “sons of serpent”, “sons of thunder”, or even “son of a gun”. Therefore, sons of God, benei elohim, specifically indicates spiritual beings as opposed to “sons of men” or “daughters of men”.

Sorry, but that doesn't follow. If it differentiated then men would be called the sons of God.

Sons of God can be, and is, used in Scripture to denote those who are set apart or separate unto God., ie The Israelites and Christians. To say the same of the Sethites only makes sense.

 

[Butch5]

Hello @Butch5,

Yes, I was dismissive of your introduction of the teaching of another: I apologise; but It was not out of a desire to avoid any further teaching on the subject, but just that I believe that the Scriptures themselves tell us enough on their own. I agree that we have to take care not to allow any presuppositions or indoctrinations to influence our understanding, but should search and see what the testimony of the whole of Scripture has to say on any given subject. That I do to the best of my ability.

Thank you
In Christ Jesus
Chris

Hi Chris, I know you search the Scriptures. I would be interested to know where in Scriputre you find the sons of God defined as spirit beings.

 

[Butch5]

At least I let the Bible to interpret itself, you just give your opinion to deny this obvious connection. In your way of thinking, any OT prophecy that subtly points to the messiah has nothing to do with Yeshua of Nazerath because it says nothing about such a person named Yeshua.

My friend, the idea, "let the Bible interpret itself", is a logical fallacy know as reiffication. The Bible is a book of the writings given by God. It doesn't speak and it doesn't have the ability to interpret. When we read it we use "our" mind, understanding, and presuppositions, to interpet what we read. The Bible isn't telling us what it means. When we say we let the Bible interpret the Bible, what we really mean is, we use what "we" believe to be a "correct" understanding of one passage to interpret another. In doing so we "assume" that our understanding of the first passage is correct. It may be or it may not be. If it's not, then we are almost certainly going to draw an incorrect conclusion about what it is we're interpreting.

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

If we're told a lot about them in the history books then where does it say they were spirit beings? Because, Genesis 6 tells us their offspring were "men" of renoun. Why would Genesis tell us they were men if they weren't?

What's so amazing about all of this is how people will believe myths and fantasies about God's word. It's almost like when people start talking about God, common sense gets tossed out of the window. People will believe that the dead as somehow alive, yet they are dead. There is no proof of this. We can go to any cemetery and see that the dead are not communicating or doing anything. We have Biblical evidence that flatly refutes the idea . Paul says the Fafher alone has immortality. Yet, in spite of this millions believe the idea are alive without the first shred of evidence.

When did I suggest or imply that those giants were spiritual beings since the beginning? Just because they were called "men" doesn't mean they were normal human beings. They were the enemy of humanity, an abomination in the eyes of God, Goliath in particular was a typology of the Antichrist. Spiritual beings also exist, such as the 'lying spirit" in 1 Kings 22:18-28, appointed by God to deceived king Ahab as his judgement.

In this instance we don't have anything telling us these sons of God were spirit beings. We have it stated explicitly that the offspring of the sons of God were men. The offspring of men are men. The offspring of angels would not be men. We know angels don't have flesh and blood. We know angels don't marry. Yet, in spite of all of this just the oppiste is claimed. It's claimed that angels do have flesh and bone and that they do marry.

When we see the fist mention of these sons of God Moses makes no effort to explain them. If this was some strange new thing we'd expect Moses to explain. However, if it was a common thing, men marrying women, then we wouldn't expect an explanation. And, we don't get one.

Why would we believe a book writtena t least 100 years after Jesus?

The idea of angles mating with women goes against the evidence we see. We're supposed to be live some legend when we have a perfectly logical explanation, the fits the evidence? I'm sorry, I can't do that. It's these myths and corruptions that have gotten the church into the situation it's in today.

If angels "don't have flesh and blood", then how did they appear as men? Like, in every single instance where an angel appears, conveying a message from God face to face? Why not just some ringing in the head? Or just dreams and visions? You know, dismissing these seemingly supernatural elements as "myths" and "fantasies" is a stumbling block that Paul specifically warned about. The gospel is conterintuitive, nothing in Christ's teaching is "common sense", none of His miracles is "common sense". If you keep holding onto your "common sense", then yes, why would you believe in this ancient book since none of these makes sense?

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

Sorry, but that doesn't follow. If it differentiated then men would be called the sons of God.

Sons of God can be, and is, used in Scripture to denote those who are set apart or separate unto God., ie The Israelites and Christians. To say the same of the Sethites only makes sense.

No, it makes zero sense. God's people are not "appointed to the wrath of God," they don't get extremely wicked that deserved to be drowned in a global flood, and this definition is not consistent with Ps. 82:6 and Job 1:6. Christians are adopted sons of God by the Holy Spirit, that never happened in the OT.

My friend, the idea, "let the Bible interpret itself", is a logical fallacy know as reiffication. The Bible is a book of the writings given by God. It doesn't speak and it doesn't have the ability to interpret. When we read it we use "our" mind, understanding, and presuppositions, to interpet what we read. The Bible isn't telling us what it means. When we say we let the Bible interpret the Bible, what we really mean is, we use what "we" believe to be a "correct" understanding of one passage to interpret another. In doing so we "assume" that our understanding of the first passage is correct. It may be or it may not be. If it's not, then we are almost certainly going to draw an incorrect conclusion about what it is we're interpreting.

Oh great, now you admit that the bible was not written in a vacuum or dropped from the sky? Then why did you dismiss legitimate extrabiblical source materials like Enoch as myths? And when you call the bible "a book", you've already made a fatal mistake. The bible is not one book, but a composite of 66 books written by dozens of authors over more than a thousand years, and yet the content is consistent. The idea of "let the bible interpret itself" is one of the five "sola"s from Protestant church fathers, and most of the time, ONE BOOK in the bible can be used to interpret ANOTHER BOOK in the bible. All NT writers quoted OT verses to make a case in their teachings, are you gonna accuse them of slipping their own biased understanding into what they read?

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

In this instance we don't have anything telling us these sons of God were spirit beings. We have it stated explicitly that the offspring of the sons of God were men. The offspring of men are men. The offspring of angels would not be men. We know angels don't have flesh and blood. We know angels don't marry. Yet, in spite of all of this just the oppiste is claimed. It's claimed that angels do have flesh and bone and that they do marry.

And again, drawing this conclusion of "angels don't marry" and applying it on everywhere else only shows that you don't understand it at all. This is like using Romans 13:1-7 to teach blind obedience to any government. When it states, "rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil," that's God's original design of civil governments, does it guarantee that all government will faithfully discharge this duty? What about all the tyrants who protect the evil and punish the good - such as today's Biden administration? Or Nero, during his reign was the book of Romans written? Likewise, "angels don't marry" in Matt. 22:30 is only a principle by God's design, that doesn't stop certain rebellious angels from exercising their free will to violate this principle. And since they can appear as men - in flesh and blood, and since it's surely possible for them to have intercourse, as the homosexuals in Sodom were chasing the two angels for that (Gen. 19:5), I don't see how the bible "flatly refutes this idea."

 

[B-A-C]

The phrase "sons of God" is only used a handful of times in the OT.

Gen 6:2; that the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose.
Gen 6:4; The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.
Job 1:6; Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came among them.
Job 2:1; Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came among them to present himself before the LORD.
Job 38:7; When the morning stars sang together And all the sons of God shouted for joy?

In every instance, it appears to be talking about angels. Gen 6:4; in particular in unique, because it says "sons of God" and contrasts it it with "daughters of men". Why aren't they daughters of God?

In the new testament, "sons of God" is always about Christian believers.

Matt 5:9; "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.
Luke 20:36; for they cannot even die anymore, because they are like angels, and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection.
Rom 8:19; For the anxious longing of the creation waits eagerly for the revealing of the sons of God.
Gal 3:26; For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.

John 1:12; But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God,
Rom 8:14; For all who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God.

It seems you have to receive and believe in Jesus in order to qualify as a son of God,
Also, you need to be led by the Spirit in order to be a son of God.

No one knew Jesus's name in the OT ( Isa 7:14; ), and the Holy Spirit wasn't yet given to everyone yet. ( only to prophets at specific moments ).

John 7:39; Now this he said about the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were to receive, for as yet the Spirit had not been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.

John 16:7; "But I tell you the truth, it is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper (the Holy Spirit) will not come to you; but if I go, I will send Him to you.

 

[PloughBoy]

Matt 5:9; "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God." { is a English translation] an "Indicative" statement, That will come to be.

"Happy are The Peacemakers, for "THEY SHALL BE" the "Sons of GOD" in The very Day of our "ADOPTION" "The Coronation DAY" when "THE FULL Shared INHERITANCE" has Been "Ratified" at "THE FATHER"S Decree" And we will Light Up The whole universe of Our Ruling Brightness!

"Their Goes "The Sons of The LIVING of GOD" In FULL POWER, MAGNIFYING "The GLORY of GOD"
The Peace that we will Display even "The Wolf will lie down with The Lamb and The Lion with The kid"
Isaiah 2:4
"And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more."

Isaiah 11 BSB
…"The infant will play by the cobra’s den, and the toddler will reach into the viper’s nest. 9They will neither harm nor destroy on all My holymountain, for the earth will be full of the knowledge of the LORD as the sea is full of water. 10On that day the Root of Jesse will stand as a banner for the peoples. The nations will seek Him, and His place of rest will be glorious.…"


Not attacking here, But Glorifying what it is to be.

For Now, there is no peace on Earth for "The LORD" made that clear.

There is no peace on this earth now, and there are no peacemakers here. This is a dark world and the devil, have deceived the whole world. There is no peace in This Place, not one drop!!! What many think is peace and quietness and happiness is only a deception! "The LORD" made sure of that! The whole world is field of total corruption. a field of lies. "for there is none righteous, No Not one" we are a world that only believe in lies, "where sin abound Grace that much more abounds" [Know the TRUTH and "The TRUTH" will let you see]
Matthew 10
33But whoever denies Me before men, I will also deny him before My Father in heaven. 34Do Not Assume That I Have Come To Bring Peace To The Earth; I Have Not Come To Bring Peace, But A Sword. 35For I Have Come To Turn ‘A Man Against His Father, A Daughter Against Her Mother, A Daughter-In-Law Against Her Mother-In-Law.…
Men will deny "HIS"very words with Boldness and try to explain them away, just like The creature spoke to Eve in The Garden. "Have not GOD said" But THE LORD Said: "I Have Not Come To Bring Peace, But A SWORD! and a mere illiterate and a little child can understand those words!

NASB 1977
and said, “Truly I say to you, unless you are converted and become like children, you shall not enter the kingdom of heaven.
Matthew 18:4
Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this little child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

NASB 1977 Matthew 11:11
“Truly, I say to you, among those born of women there has not arisen anyone greater than John the Baptist; yet he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.

“Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain.”

How can a child become a "True son" unless that child has been Born as a child or adopted, to be a son, there are only 2 ways, Born of the same being or a "adopted" son adopted with full rights. a true son cannot be created that is a pure violation of LAW. To Be a "SON of GOD" That person must be "Born of GOD" and a Document, recorded that He is a "TRUE Child of The LIVING GOD" an angel is a creation that Jesus created and a human being is a creation, created out of Dirt as "Origin"

The Old Testament writers also only wrote what they knew, and they were in The DARK concerning "The TRUE CHILDREN of GOD" and who they are, THE TRUE CHILDREN OF GOD {THE SONS OF GOD} THE OLD TESTAMENT WRITERS had no idea about "The TRUTH". The Truth came in The world and Walked in it. and He said some introduction statements like this:


NASB 1977 Matthew 5:21
“You have heard that the ancients were told,..ff.

NASB 1977 John 6:3
“But I said to you, that you have seen Me, and yet do not believe...ff.

There is such a thing as "Common BIBLICAL Sense" after One have READ THE ENTIRE BOOK. and once the Book have become known to the reader, the reader can identify The writer by The writers style.
And A christian who have Proclaim that He is "DISCIPLE of The LORD" Knows all of the writers of the BOOK and that writers style of writing.

Like you know the style of The book and the time period it was written by its style and wording even in a good translation. For that to is a "GIFT from GOD" to discern "the right hand from the left" Oh, there is "plumb Line" there is a "Standard" and how can one be in Christ for many years and still argue as school yard children about the term in the book about "the sons of God" and "THE Sons of GOD" if auguring for the last 5-10, 20, 30, 40 50 years in Christ about something that have been settle over 2000 years ago. If arguing about it today you will still will be arguing about in the next 500 years, The same text have been here for over 2000 years and been discuss. and closed. Then how can these Fumes raise in The air again, the Bible is a well of WATER deep and long which has, so much wealth, It does not have an end , But still many are stuck in The pass and cannot get past 1450-1410 B. C. into the "21st Century" and if one has not got through "B.C." yet after all of these years they will never get to the 21st century in this life time, "The Rip Van Winkle" mentality. For you have slept through a Great Revolution" and have been stuck in The mud, spinning your wheels, going no where. But your wheels are going around and around, at least "The Hebrews People" that came out "Egypt" was traveling in The desert, for 40 years instead standing still.

How does it feel to be in one place year after year going no where in "the Bible Text of eternal life" and stuck in The world. that has to be terrible, Stuck about whether a angel a created being had sex, with a woman and "they had babies and the babies where called "Giants" and that has to be messed up "ANGELS went into The daughters of Men and had "GIANTS" the is totally messed up" Humans had "Hybrids"! next thing if not already have wrote "And they did Fly"

Now I do under this, He said:
New American Standard Bible Leviticus 18:23
"Also you shall not have sexual intercourse with any animal to be defiled with it, nor shall any woman stand before an animal to mate with it; it is a
perversion." [he did not mention, to not have intercourse with a angel} This world is messed up to even thing such a thing could even happen.

Pollution Pollutes The Whole World so is "The Biblical doctrine of mankind"

New King James Version
"Then God said, “Let The Earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, each according to its kind”; And It Was So. ["AN Angel is not of the EARTH" Then Why Even Entertain The Thought!] {NOW we see Jesus, born of a women Coming Down from GOD and we, "Born of GOD of His Spirit and washed In His BLOOD" and when we see Him we will Look just Like Him. Man was Created in the Image of GOD But we are "Born from ABOVE" not created but "Born of GOD" a brand "New CREATURE" In The very Image of "The SON of The LIVING GOD" "Born and not created of GOD" but created in "Christ Jesus" "The MYSTERION"
The word "mystery" is misleading, because in English it means "something strange or not known that has not yet been explained or understood." {1} The Greek word MYSTERION (ΜΥΣΤΉΡΙΟΝ) HAS A SOMEWHAT DIFFERENT MEANING: IT SIGNIFIES SOMETHING THAT WAS UNKNOWN IN THE PAST BUT NOW IS REVEALED TO CERTAIN PEOPLE.APR 13, 2020

"Things that people mistake as being in the Bible"​

 

[Butch5]

When did I suggest or imply that those giants were spiritual beings since the beginning? Just because they were called "men" doesn't mean they were normal human beings. They were the enemy of humanity, an abomination in the eyes of God, Goliath in particular was a typology of the Antichrist. Spiritual beings also exist, such as the 'lying spirit" in 1 Kings 22:18-28, appointed by God to deceived king Ahab as his judgement.

Either these sons of God started out as spirit beings or they started out as men. You've denied they started as men previously. Do you have another option?

If angels "don't have flesh and blood", then how did they appear as men? Like, in every single instance where an angel appears, conveying a message from God face to face? Why not just some ringing in the head? Or just dreams and visions? You know, dismissing these seemingly supernatural elements as "myths" and "fantasies" is a stumbling block that Paul specifically warned about. The gospel is conterintuitive, nothing in Christ's teaching is "common sense", none of His miracles is "common sense". If you keep holding onto your "common sense", then yes, why would you believe in this ancient book since none of these makes sense?

If they don't have flesh and blood? Jesus said they don't. How they appeared as men, we're not told. I'm sure God knows.

I'm not dismissing supernatural things. I'm dismissing nonsensical things. As I've said repeatedly, nothing in Scripture tells us these sons of God are spirits. That whole idea is inferred from one passage, Job 1:6 where the sons of God appear before God and Satan is with them. There's nothing in the passage to suggest that these sons of God are spirits. If they were evil spirits as many claim why does it say the sons of God appeared and Satan with them? Who is the head demon? Who is the leader of the demons? Is it not Satan. Wouldn't we expect then to see that Satan appeared before God and the sons of God with him, if the sons of God were evil spirits. The most important demon would be named first, not as an afterthought. It should be listed the other way around.

Regarding common sense, that's all we have. If we relinquish logic then we open ourselves up to any kind of nonsense people want to give. If you give me on illogical premise, I can I prove anything to you. The "ONLY" way we know something is correct is if it's logical. When we accept that which is illogical we open ourselves to all kinds of things for instance, you're arguing for the book of Enoch that says the giants were 4500 feet tall. That's almost as high as the Rockie Mountains. How would David take a sling and sling a rock 3/4 of a mile straight up to hit Goliath between the eyes? The rock would never reach his head. Think about the size of that giant. The nail on his little finger would be larger than a man. With all of the excavation in the Middle East how come no one has ever found a femur a quarter of a mile long? I mean seriously. How does anyone believe this? Supposedly these giants ate men. How much do you suppose a 4500' tall man would weight? A couple hundred tons? Here,

The Antarctic blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus ssp. Intermedia) is the biggest animal on the planet, weighing up to 400,000 pounds (approximately 33 elephants) and reaching up to 98 feet in length.

Let's say it's 100 feet long and weighs just under a half of a million pounds. That would put this giant at 45 time bigger than the largest animal and about 18 million pounds. We're supposed to believe that there were numerous giants running around the earth weighing 18 million pounds and eating men? Seriously, I'm supposed to believe that book? So, yes, if we renounce reason we can be lead to believe irrational things like this.

According to the Bible Goliath was about 9' 9". According to the Book of Enoch he must have been about 4500 feet tall.

 

[PloughBoy]

Evil in the Last Days

1This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. 2For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, 3Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, 4Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; 5Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. 6For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, 7Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. 8Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith. 9But they shall proceed no further: for their folly shall be manifest unto all men, as theirs also was.

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

If they don't have flesh and blood? Jesus said they don't. How they appeared as men, we're not told. I'm sure God knows.

If they appeared as men, then men of flesh and blood. You've been vehementle denying the concept of spiritual beings, why sudden change of heart?

Either these sons of God started out as spirit beings or they started out as men. You've denied they started as men previously. Do you have another option?

How about both? Angels are spiritual beings in HEAVEN, but on earth, they appear as men. In Jacob's dream they could commute between heaven and earth through a ladder, whether there was some kind of transformation like the word became flesh, we don't know, but that's what the bible says. Paul wrote about this transformation as well, so take it or leave it.

I'm not dismissing supernatural things. I'm dismissing nonsensical things. As I've said repeatedly, nothing in Scripture tells us these sons of God are spirits. That whole idea is inferred from one passage, Job 1:6 where the sons of God appear before God and Satan is with them. There's nothing in the passage to suggest that these sons of God are spirits. If they were evil spirits as many claim why does it say the sons of God appeared and Satan with them? Who is the head demon? Who is the leader of the demons? Is it not Satan. Wouldn't we expect then to see that Satan appeared before God and the sons of God with him, if the sons of God were evil spirits. The most important demon would be named first, not as an afterthought. It should be listed the other way around.

Scripture did tell us that no MAN can see God's face and live (Exodus 33:20), you tell me how did they get to present themselves before God if they were men. On the other hand, spiritual beings DID appear and speak before God, in 1 Kings 22:20 a lying spirit volunteered to deceive Ahab. Therefore, your idea of them being men are refuted, it's only logical to conclude they are spiritual beings. Job 1:6 may not make that clear, but other portions of the Scripture did.

Regarding common sense, that's all we have. If we relinquish logic then we open ourselves up to any kind of nonsense people want to give. If you give me on illogical premise, I can I prove anything to you. The "ONLY" way we know something is correct is if it's logical. When we accept that which is illogical we open ourselves to all kinds of things for instance, you're arguing for the book of Enoch that says the giants were 4500 feet tall. That's almost as high as the Rockie Mountains. How would David take a sling and sling a rock 3/4 of a mile straight up to hit Goliath between the eyes? The rock would never reach his head. Think about the size of that giant. The nail on his little finger would be larger than a man. With all of the excavation in the Middle East how come no one has ever found a femur a quarter of a mile long? I mean seriously. How does anyone believe this? Supposedly these giants ate men. How much do you suppose a 4500' tall man would weight? A couple hundred tons? Here,

The Antarctic blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus ssp. Intermedia) is the biggest animal on the planet, weighing up to 400,000 pounds (approximately 33 elephants) and reaching up to 98 feet in length.

Let's say it's 100 feet long and weighs just under a half of a million pounds. That would put this giant at 45 time bigger than the largest animal and about 18 million pounds. We're supposed to believe that there were numerous giants running around the earth weighing 18 million pounds and eating men? Seriously, I'm supposed to believe that book? So, yes, if we renounce reason we can be lead to believe irrational things like this.

According to the Bible Goliath was about 9' 9". According to the Book of Enoch he must have been about 4500 feet tall.

Nowhere in the Book of Enoch explicitly states that those giants are 4500 feet tall. If you google "book of Enoch" and "giant", some results show that they are only 45 feet tall. There's no reliable record showing how exactly are the ancient units to be converted into modern units. Using this miscalculation to discredit the whole book is foolish. Certian contents and concepts from this book is explicitly referenced in the bible, and fragments of this book are in the Dead Sea scrolls, which is widely considered more authoratative than the traditional Masoretic text, therefore the book of Enoch is legitimate literature, your mocking words come out of your own bias and unbelief. I don't make up fantasies and myths, and I don't lean on my own understanding and presuppositions, I draw my conclusion based on these biblical facts and archeological discoveries. As NT writers studied and referenced this book, while you dismiss it as a myth, forgive me for siding with the NT writers and not you.

 

[complete]

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.

References:- Genesis 6:2,4; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; 2 Peter 2:4 and Jude 1:6;

Hello @BUTCH,

The record in 2 Peter and in Jude (above) refer to the beings, described in Genesis 6 as 'sons of God', as 'Angels': why should we doubt that?

As I said previously, 'angels', and 'Adam' are called 'sons of God' in the Old Testament, because created by God. In the New Testament, ( as another has already pointed out ), believers in the Lord Jesus Christ are also called 'sons of God': for they are part of the new creation of God:- Created in Christ Jesus.

Praise God!

Thank you
In Christ Jesus
Chris

 

[Butch5]

References:- Genesis 6:2,4; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; 2 Peter 2:4 and Jude 1:6;

Hello @BUTCH,

The record in 2 Peter and in Jude (above) refer to the beings, described in Genesis 6 as 'sons of God', as 'Angels': why should we doubt that?

As I said previously, 'angels', and 'Adam' are called 'sons of God' in the Old Testament, because created by God. In the New Testament, ( as another has already pointed out ), believers in the Lord Jesus Christ are also called 'sons of God': for they are part of the new creation of God:- Created in Christ Jesus.

Praise God!

Thank you
In Christ Jesus
Chris

Hi Chris, On waht basis have you determined that the record in 2 Peter and Jude are referring to the sons of God in Gen. 6:2?

 

[B-A-C]

Hi Chris, On waht basis have you determined that the record in 2 Peter and Jude are referring to the sons of God in Gen. 6:2?

There is probably no definitive way to prove this. But even if it isn't the same angels... we know some angels left heaven and committed sexual sins.

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.

Is there a way to prove it's the "sons of God" in Genesis 6? Maybe not. But there isn't a way to prove it isn't either. You still haven't answered the question about why the women here are called "daughters of men".

[AMP]
Gen 6:4 There were giants on the earth in those days--and also afterward--when the sons of God lived with the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.
Gen 6:5 The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination and intention of all human thinking was only evil continually.
Gen 6:6 And the Lord regretted that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved at heart.

Now where did the giants come from? There are over a half dozen verses in the Bible that mention giants. ...it also seems that God told many of his people to kill the giants.
Now for thousands of years, all through the Bible human men and human women mated and had children. It doesn't say any of those were giants.
But yet here, when the "sons of God" mate with the "daughters of men" now we have giants... they bore children who were the mighty men of old. Why the difference only here?

 

[Butch5]

If they appeared as men, then men of flesh and blood. You've been vehementle denying the concept of spiritual beings, why sudden change of heart?

I haven't denied the existence of spirit beings. What I've denied is that the sons of God are spirit beings.

How about both? Angels are spiritual beings in HEAVEN, but on earth, they appear as men. In Jacob's dream they could commute between heaven and earth through a ladder, whether there was some kind of transformation like the word became flesh, we don't know, but that's what the bible says. Paul wrote about this transformation as well, so take it or leave it.

They don't always appear in flesh. When Jesus cast the demons out of the pigs they were inhabiting a man, but they weren't the man. If God could make Jesus appear as flesh in the OT, I don't see why He couldn't do the same with angels.

Scripture did tell us that no MAN can see God's face and live (Exodus 33:20), you tell me how did they get to present themselves before God if they were men. On the other hand, spiritual beings DID appear and speak before God, in 1 Kings 22:20 a lying spirit volunteered to deceive Ahab. Therefore, your idea of them being men are refuted, it's only logical to conclude they are spiritual beings. Job 1:6 may not make that clear, but other portions of the Scripture did.

They presented themselves before the Son. The apostle John said, no man has seen God at any time, the only begotten Son has made Him known. When people saw the Lord, it was the Son, God's messenger. Was that lying spirit speaking to the Father or the Son? It's not refuted. Even if a spirit presented itself before the Father, that stull doesn't prove that the sons of God are spirit beings.

Nowhere in the Book of Enoch explicitly states that those giants are 4500 feet tall. If you google "book of Enoch" and "giant", some results show that they are only 45 feet tall. There's no reliable record showing how exactly are the ancient units to be converted into modern units. Using this miscalculation to discredit the whole book is foolish. Certian contents and concepts from this book is explicitly referenced in the bible, and fragments of this book are in the Dead Sea scrolls, which is widely considered more authoratative than the traditional Masoretic text, therefore the book of Enoch is legitimate literature, your mocking words come out of your own bias and unbelief. I don't make up fantasies and myths, and I don't lean on my own understanding and presuppositions, I draw my conclusion based on these biblical facts and archeological discoveries. As NT writers studied and referenced this book, while you dismiss it as a myth, forgive me for siding with the NT writers and not you.

There are several different numbers given. It's not on that alone that I dismiss it. Regarding the Bible, I'd suggest it's much more likely that the concepts and contents in the Book of Enoch are referenced from the Bible rather than the other way around. My rejection comes from the claims the book makes.

Do you realize your statement is a contradiction? You do lean on your own understanding and presuppositions. Everyone does. It's all we have. You draw your conclusions based on Biblical facts which you determine via your own understanding and presuppositions. That's how it works.

 

[B-A-C]

I haven't denied the existence of spirit beings. What I've denied is that the sons of God are spirit beings.

Job 1:6; Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came among them.
Job 1:7; The LORD said to Satan, "From where do you come?" Then Satan answered the LORD and said, "From roaming about on the earth and walking around on it."

Job 2:1; Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came among them to present himself before the LORD.
Job 2:2; The LORD said to Satan, "Where have you come from?" Then Satan answered the LORD and said, "From roaming about on the earth and walking around on it."

Who do you think these "sons of God" are here? On they on the earth or in heaven? Is Satan one of them? Is Satan flesh or spiritual? Was anyone in heaven at that time flesh?
Other than the possible exceptions of Elijah and Enoch, had any human men ascended to heaven at all during that time? Is it possible these "sons of God" must be spiritual?

John 3:13; "No one has ascended into heaven, but He who descended from heaven: the Son of Man.
Acts 2:34; "For it was not David who ascended into heaven, but he himself says: 'THE LORD SAID TO MY LORD, "SIT AT MY RIGHT HAND,