Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 19, 2022 6:53:04 GMT -8
so I preach cynicism!Which is not preaching at all. Its just a knee jerk response when one can not comprehend something for themself. How is that relevant to this op? How is that helpful? He was making a comment about himself in jest. The response is completely off-topic from your own op! Do you not see how that response warrants cynicism (an inclination to believe that people are motivated purely by self-interest) and were he not jesting proves him correct? Go to your profile page and click on the link, " View this member's recent posts," and read your last twenty posts. Look at how often this sort of thing happens. How much of it is cynicism? How much of it is " not preaching at all"? How much of it is a knee jerk response based on a lack of comprehension? How much of it violates this forum's rules? First take a look at your own posts. And then cut makesends some slack. Try Philippians 2:3, Ephesians 4:29, and Colossians 4:6 a little more frequently and a little more consistently. Doing so will make a difference. |
|
genez
Full Member
Posts: 130
|
Post by genez on Nov 19, 2022 7:52:05 GMT -8
How is that relevant to this op? How is that helpful? He was making a comment about himself in jest. The response is completely off-topic from your own op! Do you not see how that response warrants cynicism (an inclination to believe that people are motivated purely by self-interest) and were he not jesting proves him correct? Go to your profile page and click on the link, " View this member's recent posts," and read your last twenty posts. Look at how often this sort of thing happens. How much of it is cynicism? How much of it is " not preaching at all"? How much of it is a knee jerk response based on a lack of comprehension? How much of it violates this forum's rules? First take a look at your own posts. And then cut makesends some slack. Try Philippians 2:3, Ephesians 4:29, and Colossians 4:6 a little more frequently and a little more consistently. Doing so will make a difference. This has been off topic for too long. Others have gotten what I said without all this dragging. Some just do not get it. So be it. The Holy Spirit must show you.
Again ---
Why were angels able to procreate? For, the Word says some did!
When human beings began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them,
the sons of God saw that the daughters of humans were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose." Gen 6:1-2
The Hebrew does not say they "married." That is a lame translation. It says that they passionately seized and took those women they wanted.
Why am I saying this?
|
|
|
|
Post by makesends on Nov 19, 2022 11:56:05 GMT -8
I am going to tell you what some of you are resisting learning about. Its about the root cause for drag queens and homosexuality found now in men today. But, if you want to take this doctrinal issue in such a blase light manner? I will have to take the insight elsewhere. For now, here is one clue. If Adam rebelled against God before finishing the work given him of naming all the animals?
And, refused to repent (like Satan and his angels did in their fall)? God would not have blessed Adam with his woman.That blessing would have been called off. If it had happened with Adam that way? After judgment, Adam would still be able to procreate as a sign of missed blessings. That is what happened with the angels. For, Satan's rebellion and his angels put that kind of blessings away from them.
They were going to receive a female counterpart as blessing for their faithfulness. Now those angels without God's grace for celibacy have uncontrollable desire that can not be satisfied.
But, if we wish to continue with this topic as if it were a cocktail hour conversation piece? I will have to take what I have found elsewhere.
People have to be ready for it.
Ok, then. You obviously intended the op to not be whether or not your position on the identity of the 'sons of God' is correct, but the subsequent implications of the text assuming your position is correct. So, I'm willing to go there; please pardon the interruption. ASSUMING that they were angels, what is your thesis? Proceed, please, because I don't see where to go from the clue you present us. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 19, 2022 12:05:33 GMT -8
How is that relevant to this op? How is that helpful? He was making a comment about himself in jest. The response is completely off-topic from your own op! Do you not see how that response warrants cynicism (an inclination to believe that people are motivated purely by self-interest) and were he not jesting proves him correct? Go to your profile page and click on the link, " View this member's recent posts," and read your last twenty posts. Look at how often this sort of thing happens. How much of it is cynicism? How much of it is " not preaching at all"? How much of it is a knee jerk response based on a lack of comprehension? How much of it violates this forum's rules? First take a look at your own posts. And then cut makesends some slack. Try Philippians 2:3, Ephesians 4:29, and Colossians 4:6 a little more frequently and a little more consistently. Doing so will make a difference. Why were angels able to procreate? For, the Word says some did! I do not believe they are. I think that a baseless and incorrect interpretation of Genesis 6:2. Which is why I asked about the exegetical basis for such an interpretation, asked relevant questions, posted relevant scripture, and linked to various arguments online..... including one supporting the op. And to be accurate, the term " angels" should be avoided and replaced with " demons". Disobedient, sinfully dead and enslaved former angels are not still angels. They are demons ( lassedim, shed, shades). Why were demons allowed to procreate with sinful humans? I do not think they were or did. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 19, 2022 12:26:44 GMT -8
Is that what the Bible actually says? Or is that an interpretation to which some subscribe? Presumably this op is based Genesis 6's opening verses. Genesis 6:1-4
Now it came about, when men began to multiply on the face of the land, and daughters were born to them, that the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose. Then the LORD said, "My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, because he also is flesh; nevertheless, his days shall be one hundred and twenty years." 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.Why is it assumed " the sons of God" mentioned in verse 2 are angels? We know only humans are made in the image of God, male and female. We know scripture uses the masculine pronoun in reference to angels but we also know that is the default for the Hebrew language regardless of sexual identity and we know that language is used in reference to God, but God is not specifically male (or female). We also know, according to Jesus, we will be like the angels on the other side of our resurrection specifically in regard to the fact angels are not given in marriage (Mt. 22:30; Mk. 12:25). The Hebrew for "sons of God" in verse 2 is "ben elohim," ( bene haelohim), which can be diversely translated as literal "sons of God," or "house of God," or "descendants of gods," and not necessarily "angels," or "supernatural beings," We also no there is no fellowship with between darkness and light, so if we're going to translate this angels siring progeny with humans it necessarily means fallen angels or demons siring children with sinfully dead and enslaved humans, not godly people. This brings up a variety of problems because according to Jude 1 the angels who did not keep their proper abode have been held on bondage of eternal darkness until the day of judgment. How then did those held in bondage get sufficiently free to physically copulate with humans? What evidence is there in scripture angels have penises? The term " elohim" is used quite diversely in scripture and it quite often refers to ordinary humans (Ps. 82:6; Jn. 10:14). At the end of Genesis 4 we read, " To Seth also a son was born; and he named him Enosh. Then people began to call upon the name of the LORD," indicating a change occurred at the time of Enosh's life: people began to call upon God's name. What were they doing before then? Did no one call upon God's name prior to the birth of Enosh? According to Romans 9:8, " it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants." If Romans 9:8 is true then Genesis 6:2 should be read to say, " Now it came about, when men began to multiply on the face of the land, and daughters were born to them, that the [the children of the promise] saw that the daughters of men were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose." And that is an entirely different thing than to assume the " sons of God" are sinful rebellious angels who'd been cast out of heaven, escaping their bondage long enough to breed with humans and sire hybrids. That's quite and inter-species mongrel being asserted with that interpretation. Why, given all else that scripture plainly states about God, angels, and humans (and I have only sampled those scriptures), should we interpret the mention of " sons of God" in Genesis 6:2 as " fallen angels," or " demons"? What's the exegesis justifying that rendering? Just asking The onus is honest, but to be honest the onus was on me to answer Genez, so I'm glad you took the onus on you... There is a pile of scripture that is reasonably, exegetically sufficient to place doubt on the validity or veracity of interpreting Genesis 6:2 to be about demons and humans having sexual intercourse and producing hybrid or mongrel progeny. Curiously, one of the links I provided supports the position of this op but then adds commentary stating Moses de-mythologizes the matter by implying their progeny, the " mighty men" lived after their time. It's a curious thing because the Old Testament has several examples of haggibbōrîm long after the flood supposedly killed everyone (but the eight God chose). There are simply to many conflicts with too many scriptures for that interpretation to be correct, imo. |
|
|
|
Post by civic on Nov 19, 2022 15:07:03 GMT -8
The onus is honest, but to be honest the onus was on me to answer Genez, so I'm glad you took the onus on you... There is a pile of scripture that is reasonably, exegetically sufficient to place doubt on the validity or veracity of interpreting Genesis 6:2 to be about demons and humans having sexual intercourse and producing hybrid or mongrel progeny. Curiously, one of the links I provided supports the position of this op but then adds commentary stating Moses de-mythologizes the matter by implying their progeny, the " mighty men" lived after their time. It's a curious thing because the Old Testament has several examples of haggibbōrîm long after the flood supposedly killed everyone (but the eight God chose). There are simply too many conflicts with too many scriptures for that interpretation to be correct, imo. Ditto . Plus Jesus pretty much debunked the theory when He said in the resurrection we will be like the angels - no marriage , no relations with your former wife like there was here on earth |
|
genez
Full Member
Posts: 130
|
Post by genez on Nov 19, 2022 15:26:45 GMT -8
I am going to tell you what some of you are resisting learning about. Its about the root cause for drag queens and homosexuality found now in men today. But, if you want to take this doctrinal issue in such a blase light manner? I will have to take the insight elsewhere. For now, here is one clue. If Adam rebelled against God before finishing the work given him of naming all the animals?
And, refused to repent (like Satan and his angels did in their fall)? God would not have blessed Adam with his woman.That blessing would have been called off. If it had happened with Adam that way? After judgment, Adam would still be able to procreate as a sign of missed blessings. That is what happened with the angels. For, Satan's rebellion and his angels put that kind of blessings away from them.
They were going to receive a female counterpart as blessing for their faithfulness. Now those angels without God's grace for celibacy have uncontrollable desire that can not be satisfied.
But, if we wish to continue with this topic as if it were a cocktail hour conversation piece? I will have to take what I have found elsewhere.
People have to be ready for it.
Ok, then. You obviously intended the op to not be whether or not your position on the identity of the 'sons of God' is correct, but the subsequent implications of the text assuming your position is correct. So, I'm willing to go there; please pardon the interruption. ASSUMING that they were angels, what is your thesis? Proceed, please, because I don't see where to go from the clue you present us. Romans 1:18-27 sits on the page as a mystery. Why is it when God hands these evil minded over to the desire of their heart? That they suddenly abandon their natural sexuality? And become incontrollable flaming homosexuals? Because God hands them over to the demons who's mentality appeals to them! So? They have determined that they want to follow a lie - the demonic ways of lying against the truth? Then God hands them over to worship the mindset of the demonic realm..... and? Become like the ones they worship by default. God's angels are recipients of God's grace. God's angels are not given in marriage because God's grace empowers them to live like Paul did by grace. But? Fallen angels are denied God's grace. They have been left in the pain and torment of knowing God has denied them of ever having a female counterpart to love. In lust beyond their ability to resist, they adapted to their plight and entered into the very first homosexual relations - providing for themselves a counterfeit substitute in having a sex partner. Those men who worship their pattern of thinking? After God removes the restraint? Flip into becoming like the ones they love... Flaming homosexuals like Romans One tells us happens to those men who rejected what God had made clear to them about Himself..... |
|
genez
Full Member
Posts: 130
|
Post by genez on Nov 19, 2022 15:45:43 GMT -8
No longer are those angels able to materialize and have sex like they did in Genesis 6. Here is what happened to those rebellious angels... Though you already know all this, I want to remind you that the Lord at one time delivered his people out of Egypt, but later destroyed those who did not believe. And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their proper dwelling—these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day. In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire." Jude 1:5-7 and.... After being made alive, he went and made proclamation to the imprisoned spirits— to those who were disobedient long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water." 1 Peter 3:19-20 |
|
genez
Full Member
Posts: 130
|
Post by genez on Nov 20, 2022 16:07:26 GMT -8
There is a pile of scripture that is reasonably, exegetically sufficient to place doubt on the validity or veracity of interpreting Genesis 6:2 to be about demons and humans having sexual intercourse and producing hybrid or mongrel progeny. Curiously, one of the links I provided supports the position of this op but then adds commentary stating Moses de-mythologizes the matter by implying their progeny, the " mighty men" lived after their time. It's a curious thing because the Old Testament has several examples of haggibbōrîm long after the flood supposedly killed everyone (but the eight God chose). There are simply too many conflicts with too many scriptures for that interpretation to be correct, imo. Ditto . Plus Jesus pretty much debunked the theory when He said in the resurrection we will be like the angels - no marriage , no relations with your former wife like there was here on earth Which angels? Did Jesus simply say 'angels?' Read it again and see Jesus spoke of his own angels only. Fallen angels are not angels of heaven. "At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven." Matthew 22:30 Why didn't Jesus simply say angels, which would include the fallen angels? Why exclude the fallen angels? God's angels receive grace. Fallen angels do not. Like Paul was given the grace to be without a wife, so it was made for the elect angels. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 22, 2022 6:16:35 GMT -8
There is a pile of scripture that is reasonably, exegetically sufficient to place doubt on the validity or veracity of interpreting Genesis 6:2 to be about demons and humans having sexual intercourse and producing hybrid or mongrel progeny. Curiously, one of the links I provided supports the position of this op but then adds commentary stating Moses de-mythologizes the matter by implying their progeny, the " mighty men" lived after their time. It's a curious thing because the Old Testament has several examples of haggibbōrîm long after the flood supposedly killed everyone (but the eight God chose). There are simply too many conflicts with too many scriptures for that interpretation to be correct, imo. Ditto . Plus Jesus pretty much debunked the theory when He said in the resurrection we will be like the angels - no marriage , no relations with your former wife like there was here on earth I am inclined to agree but, technically, as I pointed out previously, these are NOT angels! They are demons. Or fallen angels. These are angels who have disobeyed God, either previously during the rebellion satan or the adversary led, or as one of the links I posted suggests, this was an example of the angels not keeping their "proper abode" and ignoring the created order. Either way, there is a problem because it assumes angels have genitalia (and it is human male genitalia). If former angels do have male genitalia, then are there former angels who have female genitalia? Was it only males who rebelled? Were there NO "female" angels rebelling (because that minority could be having quite a bacchanalian party with all those lust male angels after the fall)? If there are only male angels, then this is an indication of something quite unique in creation because every other advanced life form God made is sexed. Humans are made in God's image male and female (separating us from the rest of the male and female species on the planet). Maybe this copulating with the daughters of man wasn't merely about sex because marriage is a temporal expression of a divine relationship (God exists inherently already-in-relationship) and that is why we finite humans struggle so much with it. Why wouldn't the fallen angels long for that connection too? Or consider the fact we cannot mate iguanas with flounders, orangutans with egrets, pigs with bees, etc. Each is made to reproduce with its own kind to reproduce its own kind. Biologically, inter-species procreation isn't possible. Yet that's how we're supposed to read that one verse of the Bible. The one thing the fallen angels and the fallen human females had in common was their sin. Folks forget one fairly plain, simple, and blunt facts: sin kills. These would have been sinfully dead and enslaved male demons having sex with sinfully dead and enslaved female humans. That one link I posted (the third of the three) also ties Sodom and Gomorrah to that same angels not keeping their proper abode text (Jude 1) but in S&G the problem of same-sex abuse conflicts with the premise of male angel/female human hookups. Or maybe that is the reason those purported angels in Sodom denied Lot's daughters; they didn't want to trigger another Divine destruction. Too late. As I said, there's simply way too much conflict with the rest of scripture as a whole to interpret that one verse to say it's about sexual intercourse. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 22, 2022 6:28:03 GMT -8
Ditto . Plus Jesus pretty much debunked the theory when He said in the resurrection we will be like the angels - no marriage , no relations with your former wife like there was here on earth Which angels? Did Jesus simply say 'angels?' Read it again and see Jesus spoke of his own angels only. Fallen angels are not angels of heaven. "At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven." Matthew 22:30 Why didn't Jesus simply say angels, which would include the fallen angels? Why exclude the fallen angels? God's angels receive grace. Fallen angels do not. Like Paul was given the grace to be without a wife, so it was made for the elect angels. Splitting hairs over geography does not solve the problem. If angels in heaven do not marry and if that implies angels also do not have sexual relationships, then what is it in their sinfulness that makes the opposite possible? If angels in heaven do not have sexual relationships, then why do they have any sexual genitalia? Is God a wasteful God that made the created creature with sex organs He never intends the creature to use? Are there a bunch of sexually frustrated angels in heaven that become sexually empowered when they disobey God and bring sin and death upon themselves? " Hey guys, let's all defy the Creator, jump out of heaven and go to earth so we can grow genitalia and have sex with all the human females! Let's do it to further pervert ourselves." My rhetoric aside, this is what the sexual-congress interpretation of Genesis 6:2 necessarily implies if the argument is built on the distinction between heavenly angels and earthly demons. That interpretation would be arguing a lack of grace empowers sex. It would also be assuming a large pile of stuff about angels and demons that has yet to established with scripture. Let's not assume things; let's prove them with scripture. Start with the basics. How about providing some evidence (heavenly or otherwise) angels have penises? |
|
|
|
Post by civic on Nov 22, 2022 6:53:28 GMT -8
Which angels? Did Jesus simply say 'angels?' Read it again and see Jesus spoke of his own angels only. Fallen angels are not angels of heaven. "At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven." Matthew 22:30 Why didn't Jesus simply say angels, which would include the fallen angels? Why exclude the fallen angels? God's angels receive grace. Fallen angels do not. Like Paul was given the grace to be without a wife, so it was made for the elect angels. Splitting hairs over geography does not solve the problem. If angels in heaven do not marry and if that implies angels also do not have sexual relationships, then what is it in their sinfulness that makes the opposite possible? If angels in heaven do not have sexual relationships, then why do they have any sexual genitalia? Is God a wasteful God that made the created creature with sex organs He never intends the creature to use? Are there a bunch of sexually frustrated angels in heaven that become sexually empowered when they disobey God and bring sin and death upon themselves? " Hey guys, let's all defy the Creator, jump out of heaven and go to earth so we can grow genitalia and have sex with all the human females! Let's do it to further pervert ourselves." My rhetoric aside, this is what the sexual-congress interpretation of Genesis 6:2 necessarily implies if the argument is built on the distinction between heavenly angels and earthly demons. That interpretation would be arguing a lack of grace empowers sex. It would also be assuming a large pile of stuff about angels and demons that has yet to established with scripture. Let's not assume things; let's prove them with scripture. Why don't you start by providing some evidence (heavenly or otherwise) angels have penises? I remember as a young believer getting pulled into the fallen angels intercourse with human dogma . It was very intriguing and I believe taught in the book of enoch. I use to watch a guy on tv in the 80's Gene Scott who use to teach that stuff along with Anglo Israelism(lost tribes of Israel ) and pyramidology- the message of the bible in the pyramid. They are nothing but rabbit holes and sci-fi at best. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 22, 2022 8:28:16 GMT -8
Splitting hairs over geography does not solve the problem. If angels in heaven do not marry and if that implies angels also do not have sexual relationships, then what is it in their sinfulness that makes the opposite possible? If angels in heaven do not have sexual relationships, then why do they have any sexual genitalia? Is God a wasteful God that made the created creature with sex organs He never intends the creature to use? Are there a bunch of sexually frustrated angels in heaven that become sexually empowered when they disobey God and bring sin and death upon themselves? " Hey guys, let's all defy the Creator, jump out of heaven and go to earth so we can grow genitalia and have sex with all the human females! Let's do it to further pervert ourselves." My rhetoric aside, this is what the sexual-congress interpretation of Genesis 6:2 necessarily implies if the argument is built on the distinction between heavenly angels and earthly demons. That interpretation would be arguing a lack of grace empowers sex. It would also be assuming a large pile of stuff about angels and demons that has yet to established with scripture. Let's not assume things; let's prove them with scripture. Start with the basics. How about providing some evidence (heavenly or otherwise) angels have penises? ..........They are nothing but rabbit holes and sci-fi at best. Yep. British Israelism makes my skin crawl (or want to remove my tongue because it leaves such an unpalatable taste in my mouth). |
|
genez
Full Member
Posts: 130
|
Post by genez on Nov 22, 2022 8:55:57 GMT -8
Splitting hairs over geography does not solve the problem. If angels in heaven do not marry and if that implies angels also do not have sexual relationships
'Angels in heaven' was Jesus being specific. Splitting hairs?
|
|
genez
Full Member
Posts: 130
|
Post by genez on Nov 22, 2022 8:57:01 GMT -8
I'm getting out of here...... BYE!
Hope you do well with the forum.
|
|
