Things that people mistake as being in the Bible

[complete]

' And again, when He bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world,
He saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.
And of the angels He saith,
Who maketh His angels spirits, and His ministers a flame of fire.
But unto the Son He saith,
Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever:
a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of Thy kingdom.'
(Heb 1:6-8)

@Butch5:-

A Psalm of David.
"Give unto the LORD, O ye mighty, ( sons of Eyleem - deities )
give unto the LORD glory and strength."
(Psa 29:1)

* https://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/psa29.pdf

'For who in the heaven can be compared unto the LORD?
who among the sons of the mighty can be likened unto the LORD? ( sons of Eyleem - deities )
God is greatly to be feared in the assembly of the saints, (Angels)
and to be had in reverence of all them that are about Him.'
(Psa 89:6-7)

* https://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/psa89.pdf

* These are more obscure, yet exist, so I record them here.

Thank you
In Christ Jesus
Chris

 

[Butch5]

References:- Genesis 6:2,4; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; 1 Peter 3:18-20; 2 Peter 2:4 and Jude 1:6;

'And it came to pass,​

when men began to multiply on the face of the earth,​

and daughters were born unto them,​

That the sons of God​

.. saw the daughters of men ​

.... that they were fair;​

...... and they took them wives of all which they chose.​

And the LORD said,​

My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh:​

yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.​

There were giants in the earth in those days;​

and also after that,​

when the sons of God 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.'​

(Gen 6:1-4)​

​

* https://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/gen6.pdf​

Hello @BUTCH,

To me, it is so evident, that the Holy Spirit has defined by this wording, i.e., 'the sons of God', and 'the daughters of men', the two categories of 'Being' being referred to, namely 'Human' and 'Angelic'. Especially in the light of the references to, 'sons of God', in the book of Job. ( Job 1:6; Job 2:1; Job 38:7 KJV).

'Now there was a day when the sons of God​

came to present themselves before the LORD,​

and Satan came also among them.'​

(Job 1:6)​

​

* https://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/job1.pdf​

'Again there was a day when the sons of God came​

to present themselves before the LORD,​

and Satan came also among them​

to present himself before the LORD.'​

(Job 2:1)​

​

* https://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/job2.pdf​

​

'When the morning stars sang together,​

and all the sons of God shouted for joy?'​

(Job 38:7)​

​

* https://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/job38.pdf​

​

* In the book of Job, Satan ( an angelic being ), came with other angelic beings, referred to as, 'sons of God', to present himself before God: He, though one of them, is identified separately because he is 'the Adversary' among them. (see the Heb. Interlinear) first in rank and power, and the chief player in the dialogue that follows.

* This is what is written and this is what I believe.

Thank you
In Christ Jesus
Chris

Hi Chris, I understand what you're saying. What I'm asking is what is the basis for your belief that the sons of God are spirit beings. Is it simply because they presented themselves before God and Satan was with them? I don't see anything there that warrants the sons of God being spirit beings. When Adam and Eve were in the presence of God in Genesis, Satan was also there. We see the same scenario in Gen as we see in Job. However, I don't believe anyone will argue that Adam and Eve were spirit beings.

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

Here we have Adam and Eve in the presence of the Lord God. Now, how can that be if no man has seen God at any time? John tells us, the only begotten Son has made Him known.

Adam and Eve were in the presence of the Son.

Well that’s funny, nowhere in Gen. 1-3 explicitly said that. On the contrary, they were HIDING from God’s presence after they ate the fruit.

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

And that's my point. There's nothing stating it. People just make assumptions.

There’s nothing stating such a man named Yeshua of Nazerath, son of a builder (or carpenter), will be the Messiah, so why is that assumption made?

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

We don't know why they became wicked. However, that's totally irrelevant to the issue.

Ok, you say Noah and Seth were centuries apart. That eliminates 2 Peter 2:4 from the list of passages because Peter tells us that those angels sinned in the days of Noah.

1 Peter 3:19–20 (KJV 1900): 19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; 20 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.

So, their sin and the reason for their imprisonment came in Noah's day not Gen 6. So that rules them out as the sons of God in Gen 6.

Are you even reading what you wrote? The whole chapter of Gen. 6 took place in the days of Noah, where does it say that it reverted back to the days of Seth? That wickedness debunks your whole Sethite argument, and you think you can whisk it off by dismissing it as “irrelevant”?

 

[Butch5]

Jude 1:7
(GNB) Remember Sodom and Gomorrah, and the nearby towns, whose people acted as those angels did and indulged in sexual immorality and perversion: they suffer the punishment of eternal fire as a plain warning to all.
(HCSB) In the same way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them committed sexual immorality and practiced perversions, just as angels did, and serve as an example by undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.

(Greek NT) ὡς Σόδομα καὶ Γόμορρα καὶ αἱ περὶ αὐτὰς πόλεις τὸν ὅμοιον τούτοις τρόπον ἐκπορνεύσασαι καὶ ἀπελθοῦσαι ὀπίσω σαρκὸς ἑτέρας πρόκεινται δεῖγμα, πυρὸς αἰωνίου δίκην ὑπέχουσαι.

(AMPC) [The wicked are sentenced to suffer] just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the adjacent towns--which likewise gave themselves over to impurity and indulged in unnatural vice and sensual perversity--are laid out [in plain sight] as an exhibit of perpetual punishment [to warn] of everlasting fire. [Genesis 19]
(ASV) Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them, having in like manner with these given themselves over to fornication and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the punishment of eternal fire.
of eternal fire.

... Sodom, Gomorrah, and the cities... in like manner to "these"... same way as "these" Who are "these" obviously not the cities.

(MKJV) as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them, in like manner to these, committing fornication, and going away after other flesh, laid down an example before-times, undergoing vengeance of everlasting fire.
(NAS77) Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example, in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.
(NAS95) just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.

It is the cities. They are the antecedent. "In like manner" is a phrase of comparison. It needs an antecedent. As Sodom and Gomorrah (comma) and the cities around them, in like manner. The cities did "in like manner" as Sodom and Gomorrah.

 

[Butch5]

Are you even reading what you wrote? The whole chapter of Gen. 6 took place in the days of Noah, where does it say that it reverted back to the days of Seth? That wickedness debunks your whole Sethite argument, and you think you can whisk it off by dismissing it as “irrelevant”?

Yeah, I read what I wrote. You said Seth and Noah were centuries apart. The sons of God took wives of the daughters of men in days of Seth and Enosh his son. The spirits in prison in 1 Peter 3 and 2 Peter2 are said to have sinned in the days of Noah. According to what you said these events are centuries apart. Thus, these angels that Peter is speaking of cannot be the sons of God who took wives of the daughters of men.

Not at all. Please explain how the children of the sons of God turning wicked is relevant.

 

[Butch5]

There’s nothing stating such a man named Yeshua of Nazerath, son of a builder (or carpenter), will be the Messiah, so why is that assumption made?

Not sure where you're going here.

 

[Butch5]

Well that’s funny, nowhere in Gen. 1-3 explicitly said that. On the contrary, they were HIDING from God’s presence after they ate the fruit.

Right. And He found them. Thus the conversation.

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

Yeah, I read what I wrote. You said Seth and Noah were centuries apart. The sons of God took wives of the daughters of men in days of Seth and Enosh his son. The spirits in prison in 1 Peter 3 and 2 Peter2 are said to have sinned in the days of Noah. According to what you said these events are centuries apart. Thus, these angels that Peter is speaking of cannot be the sons of God who took wives of the daughters of men.

Really? Where in Gen. 6 says it's in the days of Seth? At the end of last chapter, Noah had his three sons, so again, you tell me why the clock was suddenly wound back to Seth?

Not at all. Please explain how the children of the sons of God turning wicked is relevant.

Duh, that's why God flooded the whole earth and restarted with Noah?

Right. And He found them. Thus the conversation.

Do you realize how ridiculous that is? Up is down, black is white, hiding from God is in presence of God. Yeah, God found them, but they were NOT in the presence of God. They were HIDING from God's presence!

Not sure where you're going here.

I'm not sure why you're so passionately defending this ridiculous Sethite doctrine and denying the meddling of evil angels. I'm not sure why you'd severe the ties between the OT and the NT rather than connecting the dots.

 

[Butch5]

Really? Where in Gen. 6 says it's in the days of Seth? At the end of last chapter, Noah had his three sons, so again, you tell me why the clock was suddenly wound back to Seth?

Ok, I conflated the two inadvertently. But either way, God tells us they were men.

Duh, that's why God flooded the whole earth and restarted with Noah?

Yeah. But what does that have to do with the sons of God being spirit beings?

Do you realize how ridiculous that is? Up is down, black is white, hiding from God is in presence of God. Yeah, God found them, but they were NOT in the presence of God. They were HIDING from God's presence!

It's not ridiculous. You can't have a conversation with someone if you not in theor presence. Today you can, but not then. Just because they're hiding behind a tree doesn't mean they aren't in the presence of the Lord. If we want to get technical David let's us know that we cannot escape His presence.

Psalm 139:7–10 (KJV 1900): Whither shall I go from thy spirit?
Or whither shall I flee from thy presence?
8 If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there:
If I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there.
9 If I take the wings of the morning,
And dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea;
10 Even there shall thy hand lead me,
And thy right hand shall hold me.

I'm not sure why you're so passionately defending this ridiculous Sethite doctrine and denying the meddling of evil angels. I'm not sure why you'd severe the ties between the OT and the NT rather than connecting the dots.

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

I might ask you the same question, why are imposing a Jewish book of mysticism on the Scriptures? Then there the obvious question. If the book is all true, why wasn't it considered Scripture?

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

Ok, I conflated the two inadvertently. But either way, God tells us they were men.

No, God never tells us that, you do.

Yeah. But what does that have to do with the sons of God being spirit beings?

To wipe them out.

It's not ridiculous. You can't have a conversation with someone if you not in theor presence. Today you can, but not then. Just because they're hiding behind a tree doesn't mean they aren't in the presence of the Lord. If we want to get technical David let's us know that we cannot escape His presence.

Hiding from God's presence is the OPPOSITE of face to face in God's presence. If you're hiding from Him, then you're not in his presence. David was speaking of the same situation where Adam and Eve were hiding from God and assuming they could get away. You don't "present yourself before God" like the sons of God did in Job 1:6 and "hiding from His presence" at the same time.

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

They didn't have Job? Don't you know that Job is THE oldest book, even before Moses? They had much more literatures than you think that were later lost in history, it's just your foolish assumption that they only had the first 5 chapters of Genesis at that point. Nowhere in chapter 5 refers to anybody as sons of God, and nowhere in chapter 6 says anybody calling the name of the Lord, and those two were centuries apart, therefore your conclusion is totally illogical. You didn't conflate them inadvertantly, you conflated them intentionally.

And still, you couldn't tell why God drowned those "sons of God" in the flood if they "called upon the name of the Lord" as you claim.

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

I might ask you the same question, why are imposing a Jewish book of mysticism on the Scriptures? Then there the obvious question. If the book is all true, why wasn't it considered Scripture?

For the same reason this book was referenced in the NT. In fact, Enoch WAS in the Scripture in the early church. Just because it's not in the canonical Scripture doesn't mean it's not considered Scripture.

And again, "mythicism" is not a valid issue. If it were, then every supernatural miracle in the bible is a myth, the whole bible should be discredited a myth. For instance, why giants in the bible are dismissed as irrelevant, and yet the SAME giants in Enoch are a big issue to you like a sore thumb. Why is that?

 

[complete]

Hi Chris, I understand what you're saying. What I'm asking is what is the basis for your belief that the sons of God are spirit beings. Is it simply because they presented themselves before God and Satan was with them? I don't see anything there that warrants the sons of God being spirit beings. When Adam and Eve were in the presence of God in Genesis, Satan was also there. We see the same scenario in Gen as we see in Job. However, I don't believe anyone will argue that Adam and Eve were spirit beings.

Hello @Butch5,

Enough is enough. I have answered your questions fully in replies #147. #159. #160, #161 and those previously given, and provided sufficient proof that 'the sons of God' are angelic beings.

In Christ Jesus
Chris

 

[Br. Bear]

It's hard going Harry
Don't break your head on the wall

reasoning reasons reasonably
it's much like a cult might be

perhaps it's time for all to remember
Him Who died on the Tree?


Bless you ....><>

 

[complete]

Hello @Butch5,

Enough is enough. I have answered your questions fully in replies #147. #159. #160, #161 and those previously given, and provided sufficient proof that 'the sons of God' are angelic beings.

In Christ Jesus
Chris

Hello again, Butch5,

A corrective:- The use of the words, 'the sons of God' in the Old Testament refer to angelic beings.

Thank you and goodbye for now.
In Christ Jesus
Chris

 

[Butch5]

Hello @Butch5,

Enough is enough. I have answered your questions fully in replies #147. #159. #160, #161 and those previously given, and provided sufficient proof that 'the sons of God' are angelic beings.

In Christ Jesus
Chris

Ok, I'm unsure why you even quoted my original post if you're not interested in discussion.

 

[Butch5]

For the same reason this book was referenced in the NT. In fact, Enoch WAS in the Scripture in the early church. Just because it's not in the canonical Scripture doesn't mean it's not considered Scripture.

And again, "mythicism" is not a valid issue. If it were, then every supernatural miracle in the bible is a myth, the whole bible should be discredited a myth. For instance, why giants in the bible are dismissed as irrelevant, and yet the SAME giants in Enoch are a big issue to you like a sore thumb. Why is that?

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.

 

[Butch5]

No, God never tells us that, you do.

Actually, He does.

6 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, 2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. 3 And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.

The Holy Bible: King James Version, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), Ge 6.

The Septuagint renders it this way.

6 1 And Noe was five hundred years old, and he begot three sons, Sem, Cham, and Japheth.
2 And it came to pass when men began to be numerous upon the earth, and daughters were born to them, 3 that the sons of God having seen the daughters of men that they were beautiful, took to themselves wives of all whom they chose. 4 And the Lord God said, My Spirit shall certainly not remain among these men for ever, because they are flesh, but their days shall be an hundred and twenty years.

Lancelot Charles Lee Brenton, The Septuagint Version of the Old Testament: English Translation (London: Samuel Bagster and Sons, 1870), Ge 6.

In the Spetuagint the antecendent for "these men" is the sons of God. Moses writes of the sons of God and God's response is "these men".

To wipe them out.

How does that bear on the issue? I'm not sure how their being destroyed matters to whether or not they were spirit beings.

Hiding from God's presence is the OPPOSITE of face to face in God's presence. If you're hiding from Him, then you're not in his presence. David was speaking of the same situation where Adam and Eve were hiding from God and assuming they could get away. You don't "present yourself before God" like the sons of God did in Job 1:6 and "hiding from His presence" at the same time.

I didn't say "face to face". I said in God's presence. How can you have a conversation with someone if you're not in their presence?

They didn't have Job? Don't you know that Job is THE oldest book, even before Moses? They had much more literatures than you think that were later lost in history, it's just your foolish assumption that they only had the first 5 chapters of Genesis at that point. Nowhere in chapter 5 refers to anybody as sons of God, and nowhere in chapter 6 says anybody calling the name of the Lord, and those two were centuries apart, therefore your conclusion is totally illogical. You didn't conflate them inadvertantly, you conflated them intentionally.

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 is an interesting statement. "

Nowhere in chapter 5 refers to anybody as sons of God, and nowhere in chapter 6 says anybody calling the name of the Lord,"

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

And still, you couldn't tell why God drowned those "sons of God" in the flood if they "called upon the name of the Lord" as you claim.

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.

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

In the Spetuagint the antecendent for "these men" is the sons of God. Moses writes of the sons of God and God's response is "these men".

That's just one particular version where the translator wrote his own opinion into the verse. There are four interpretations of Gen. 6:4 - 1) 120 years for mankind to repent till the flood; 2) 120 years till Adam passed away, the "man" being Adam; 3) 120 jubilee years instead of regular years, which amounts to 6000 years in total of human history; 4) Human life expectancy is reduced to 120 as the upper limit. Obviously this version goes for the first one and completely excludes the other three possibilities, and that is problematic, because there's always more depth than face value.

How does that bear on the issue? I'm not sure how their being destroyed matters to whether or not they were spirit beings.

It matters because that shows they're not "Sethites" who "call upon the name of the Lord" as you claim. Real children of God are not appointed to the wrath of God.

I didn't say "face to face". I said in God's presence. How can you have a conversation with someone if you're not in their presence?

Eh ... like what are doing right now? Probably at two sides of the Pacific Ocean?

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.

Why do I have to keep reminding you that Seth and Noah are centuries apart? Just because Enosh called upon the name of the Lord doesn't mean the "sons of God" in Noah's days did the same. In fact, they were "scoffers" who mocked God, that's the opposite of "calling upon the name of God."