The disease of sound-byte-itis has inflicted
a severe addiction to the SOUND, and
a crippling disability in discerning the SENSE...
a severe addiction to the SOUND, and
a crippling disability in discerning the SENSE...
of a matter.
https://www.facebook.com/sing.f.lau/posts/3221327527556
May 12, 2012 at 9:21pm ·
The sons of God versus the Son of God
Sing F Lau
The sons of God (angels who unlawfully took upon themselves humanity) brought destruction!
The Son of God (the eternal Word who was made flesh) brought redemption.
Jude 6 "And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day."
John 1:14 "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth."
When the 'sons of God' took flesh upon themselves (contrary to God's will), and procreate, they brought destruction. When the fallen angel left their native habitation, the result was destruction (Gen 6:1ff)
When the eternal Word was made flesh (according to God's will), and gives eternal life, He brought in redemption. The eternal Word left His native habitation too but that brought redemption.
Charles
the "sons of God" are angels?
Sing F Lau
Angels and angels who took upon themselves humanity are distinct, just like the eternal Word and the Son of God are distinct.
Sing F Lau
Some questions on Jude 6 worth inquiring!
"And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day."
Please answer these questions for me... deal with the Scriptures please. Don't just read private opinions into God's word. These are simple enough questions.
Take note that Jude is stating, matter of factly, a historical event which he takes for granted that the recipients know.
1. What is the first estate of the angels mentioned?
2. When did those angels that kept not their first estate left their own habitation? (Their first estate is also their own habitation).
3. What happened when they left their own habitation? Where did they go having left their own habitation?
4. Is leaving their own habitation and being expelled from heaven speaking of the same event?
5. Where, in the Scriptures, is this departure from their first estate recorded, if is it indeed recorded at all?
6. Where did Jude get his information about those angels that kept not their first estate but left their own habitation?
7. Were all fallen angels involved in departure?
8. Were all fallen angels reserved by God in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day?
Simple questions demand plain answers. Now, please tell us what Jude 6 says.
And tell us what 2Pet 2:4 say:
"For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment."
This passage is closely related to Jude 6; both speak of angels being reserved by God in chains and darkness and reserved unto judgment. That passage states the fact the sin committed by the angels involved; Jude 6 discloses the nature of the sin.
Please deal with Scriptures. Personal opinions are irrelevant. Thanks.
Charles
the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us.
Sing F Lau
The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us, and secured eternal redemption and give eternal life!
The fallen angels (not all of them) that left their own habitation (unlawfully, contrary to God's will) and took upon themselves flesh AND dwelt among men and procreate with the purpose bringing destruction upon the human race, thus to circumvent the appearance of the Seed of the woman that will crush the head of the serpent!
Charles
Paul says we will be judging angels!
Sing F Lau
Please explain the relevance of that point with respect to the subject under discussion?
Johnny
1. God's spiritual subordinates.
2. A rebellion of one spirit angel (Lucifer or Satan) recruiting followers against God (they apparently have free will also, as humans, created "just a little lower" than them.
3. Do not know the will of God to answer. I speculate that Satan himself invaded God's physical creature, Eve.
4. If 3. is correct, Genesis 1.
5. Direct revelation from God, through his intellect, in not simply spoken through the Spirit to him.
6. Yes, some dwelled in people, then into pigs, as a NT example, cast by Jesus, and down the cliff they went.
7. God limits their power, "no man is tempted beyond which he can bare (not resist)," Jesus demonstrated the Father's spiritual power over them on earth by casting out demons, etc. The lake of fire, is reserved, a their final spiritual place, after reality is terminated by God.
Charles
there must be a relevance. Apparently, angels are awaiting a judgement that includes our shared discernment.
I am getting ready to go to work and I await a lengthy list of comments on this thread. This is interesting.
Sing F Lau
Let me warn loose babblers first:
Angels don't procreate. That's quite clear.
The sons of God in Gen 6 are not angels, but angels who had unlawfully taken upon themselves humanity, and such DO PROCREATE.
Think before you write here.
Sing F Lau
there must be a relevance. Apparently, angels are awaiting a judgement that includes our shared discernment.
========
Far-sightedness is good sometimes... but you are looking TOOOOO FAR ahead. We are way way back there in Gen 6.
Johnny
Regarding spiritual matters, Sing, we that are limited by our physical minds and answer to prayers, are all babblers, if undeniable truth is expected to come from our lips. Much is speculation, theory, interesting thought, guesswork, and reasonable to the extent that person A can express his speculation about just abstract thoughts to person B. It is mental gymnastics at times, far more pleasant than thinking of economic theories, for example. Either, one person's guess is as good as another. If God had wanted such things to be clear to our minds, He would have made it so.
Charles
A process of elimination! angels don't procreate!
Sing F Lau
Johnny, would you like to answer some of those questions on Jude 6, please! Consistent answers will lead you to the truth.
I am getting ready to go to work and I await a lengthy list of comments on this thread. This is interesting.
Charles, every time I see a FedEx plane takes off, I remember you, and say a prayer for you! That's true!
Charles
I wish I didn't have to go to work! I will miss this! I would love to leap into the fray!!! I got a feeling in my bones!
Sing F Lau
Johnny, I work on the premise that God's Holy Word was given to His people, and ALL of it is PROFITABLE... thus all capable of being understood by His people. What is needed is the study to rightly divide the word of truth. That's my basic worldview.
2Tim 3:
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
All Scripture IS profitable.... for it to be profitable, it must be capable of being clearly understood...
Your whole outlook of knowledge is a source of despair!
Sing F Lau
"And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day."
1. What is the first estate of the angels mentioned?
JD: God's spiritual subordinates.
Your answer deals with their standing! In their standing, they were, are and will forever by God's subordinates! This is true of ALL angels... whether elect or fallen.
The first estate of the angels concerned with their OWN habitation: their native realm of existence... THAT IS, in the spirit realm. They kept not their own estate, but TRANSGRESSED and entered an estate not their own, that of human's. That's pretty basic.
2. When did those angels that kept not their first estate left their own habitation?
JD: A rebellion of one spirit angel (Lucifer or Satan) recruiting followers against God (they apparently have free will also, as humans, created "just a little lower" than them.
I know this answer is coming. If your answer was true, then ALL the fallen angels would have been "reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day."
Jude 6 tells us that the angels that were involved in leaving their first habitation have been "reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day." Would you say that ALL the fallen angels are reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day... or many fallen angels are still pretty roaming about the earth?
Note also, the fall of angels DID NOT involve those angels leaving their first and native habitation after the fall, they remained in their OWN HABITATION, in the spirit realm.
Take note: the fall of the angels and the angels leaving the native habitation are distinct and different.
I won't bother examining the rest of your answers.
Good try. Only consistent answers will lead you to the truth. Thanks.
Mathiu
Sing F Lau @ Angels and angels who took upon themselves humanity are distinct, just like the eternal Word and the Son of God are distinct.
-----------------
What do you mean the eternal Word and the Son of God are distinct? I ask this because the word distinct is used here to divide the Holy Angles and also the devils.
The "devils" that I am using meant(the fallen angels that rebelled against God) like Lucifer.
Sing F Lau
Mathiu asked:
What do you mean the eternal Word and the Son of God are distinct? I ask this because the word distinct is used here to divide the Holy Angles and also the devils.
========
The eternal Word is a one-natured divine Person.
The Son of God is a DUAL-natured divine-human Person.
The Son of God is the eternal Word made flesh.
Does that answer your question?
Who is dividing the Holy Angles and also the devils?
Who speaks of Holy Angels and also the devils?
Now, you answer my question. Thanks.
JimC
Sing, Please clarify: you believe the sons of God in Gen 6 which married the daughters of men are angel-possessed?
Mathiu
@Sing: the usage of the word distinct(commonly known as different and separate) in the same sentence seems to imply the eternal Word of God and also the Son of God are two different being. Because the Holy Angles and also the devils are in two different groups. But John 1:1 and also other passages within John and Isaiah and Daniel clearly state that the eternal Word and also the Son of God(Jesus Christ of Nazareth) is the same being. That is the reason I am asking.
---------------------------
The scripture divided the Holy Angles and also the devils? So, God did so.
Johnny
Don't neglect the Holy Spirit as a component of God's Word. That "Word is God." Jesus came in the form of flesh, as God with God's Spirit as a constant direct link to do the "Will of the Father." We, as fellows Sons of God, have that same Spirit, to which we do not avail, as did Jesus. How do I come to this conclusion, right or wrong. Not until my prayers asked for guidance from the Spirit in me, in the flesh, in decisions yea or nay, did I realize that the prayers were answered, the decisions to do or not to do, were clearly shown, but most importantly, overcoming self-imposed sin (not the devil made me do it, or God allowed it, sin that was allowed by my own desires, previously, were cast aside. The Spirit has kept me out of such sin, after asking him daily for guidance. And, I have not continued to "grieve the Spirit," by ignoring him, and certainly not blasphemed (though may have been close) and committed the unpardoned sin. I am going to study Jude 6, to see how any of it relates to me, and my expression of God in my life, for the benefit of others. Concerning knowledge, that is what I KNOW IS TRUE, as it came to me, personally by God, not by anyone more knowledgable in scripture's meaning. I admit "error," the possibility of false doctrine, though pure belief taught out of love. Even so, what does it matter what man says about it, huh?
Charles
I want to hear more!!! studying for myself
Sing F Lau
Mathiu, is the eternal Word and the Son of God one exactly same Person?
And who is talking about Holy Angels and the devils.
You INTRODUCE that idea into the discussion, so you sort out your own problem.
I did not even hint at such.
Sing F Lau
JimC, What do you mean by angel-possessed? Like a man being demon possessed?
Johnny, thank you for your rambling on your personal experience of this and that... don't know how they contribute to the issue under discussion. But thanks anyway.
Sing F Lau
Gen 19:
1 ¶ And there came two angels to Sodom at even; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom: and Lot seeing them rose up to meet them; and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground;
2 And he said, Behold now, my lords, turn in, I pray you, into your servant’s house, and tarry all night, and wash your feet, and ye shall rise up early, and go on your ways. And they said, Nay; but we will abide in the street all night.
3 And he pressed upon them greatly; and they turned in unto him, and entered into his house; and he made them a feast, and did bake unleavened bread, and they did eat.
===========
In what form did the two angels come to Sodom - as pure angels or as angels that had taken upon humanity?
Did Lot see the two angels as angels, or did he see them as true men?
Why is it so difficult for so many so-called 'Bible-only' Christians to accept the fact that angelic beings can take on true humanity, and interact and be involved in the affair of men?
Sing F Lau
Gen 6:4 ¶ 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.
5 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
6 ¶ And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.
8 ¶ But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.
Had there been no Gen 6:8, Satan would have triumphed in his plotting to circumvent the Divine curse that his head would be crush by the seed of the woman! Ever since that curse was pronounced against Satan, he has been scheming and plotting ways of circumventing it! Gen 6:1f is one such attempt!
As a result of the scheming of Satan and his hosts, the LORD Jehovah said, "I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them." That was the consequence INTENDED and DESIRED by Satan... that way there is no way the seed of the woman would appear on the scene to crush Satan's head!
But there is a glorious disjunctive 'BUT' in the midst of necessary destruction. Had there been no DISJUNCTIVE BUT... "But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD", there would have been no promised seed of the woman... and Satan would have triumphed! But God forbid!
And so many could only think of Gen 6:1ff as about the relatively petty, and anachronistic, issue of mixed marriage!!! How smart of the devil... such that so many would vehemently deny his central role in that whole destruction!
Johnny
We possess the Spirit of God, and perhaps are presented with angels in our lives, unknown to us. They may appear to be anything but angels, yet our love for man, in our zeal to show Christ to others, may "entertain angels without being aware of it." As to possession by demons, certainly NT examples show this literally, and why not today, as well. Lots of this status is no more than speculation, so I'll give a possibility. Who knows how Satan manages his troops? Perhaps he has groups, led by a demon, or demons of alcohol, demons of sex, demons of greed, and they, by the will of the people involved, invade us. The Holy Spirit within us could cast them out anytime, yet I believe He acts, as we pray. It's mothers day, and my mom's favorite song with Rambling Rose. The apple does fall far from the tree, does it, Sing?
Sing F Lau
Johnny, don't you think speculation can easily be shown for what it is. Why don't you concentrate your mind to disprove what you consider as speculation, and then present us the truth from the Scriptures.
Since Jude 6 can't possibly be speculation, why don't you tell us what it says. If your explanation is self-consistent, it will be the truth!
I believe you could easily qualify to be a first grade agnostic...
Is it also speculation that mother's day is not in the Scriptures... it is just another day imagined, and commercialized by man?
Charles
Did the DNA passed on from these marriages carry angelic characteristics? Are they little angels?
Sing F Lau
Gen 6
4 ¶ 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.
5 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
See the intense corrupting influence of their whole mission! Their offspring were mighty men... men of renown... for his WICKEDNESS (of the whole HUMAN RACE!)... such that it necessitated the destruction of the whole world.
But GRACE intervened... Noah was spared... so that the Seed of the Woman would still appear for His work.
p/s: In those days, i.e. when the sons of God took daughters of men, their offsprings were "giants", giants in what sense? Those "giants" were all and complete wiped out by the flood?
Johnny
@Sing. All one accomplishes on these subjects is speculation, and yes, I enjoy that as much as anyone. And I will study Jude in light of your questions (I suppose they are questions that you need answer to, but in the end, my answer is as good as anyone elses). So, I am in the process of that study. Now, my comment in the meantime, regarding Spirits, is what the spirit of God has meant to me, in improving my life, in service to Him. It is a confession of sorts. It is a testimony. As you said, you thanked me for that, it is your status, yet it is related to spirits, angels, devils, all that, and Iwould hope to be beneficial. If not, ok. So, now to your questions. And I do not disapprove of speculation. What is meditation, if it does not include brainstorming, question and answer, incorrect conclusions, correct conclusions, and discernment of righteousness. Further, scripture is NEVER speculation (you may have misunderstood my comment). It is all direct from God. Yet, I THINK that God, like Jesus, did not come outright with words of truth, that is grasped without thought. Jesus in His direct words, to EVERYONE, was mysterious in a way, never coming out with his mission, leaving hints and prophesies, telling stories. If you or I had walked with him, we would not have understood what was going on, any better than his apostles. I doubt if the best of our explanations, especially of spiritual matters, are any closer to "reality" of God's nature, until He reveals Himself completely. And, that will be in heaven.
Sing F Lau
Johnny, if all you are capable of is speculation, then you should keep company with the speculators. But if you can direct me to the truth of Scriptures, comment on. Thanks.
Since Scriptures is never speculation, stick to the Scriptures. The rest is not relevant here.
All that God has revealed to His people CAN be understood as intended. God's revealed truth can be known, and ought to be known.
Terisa
Gen 6 - Cainite and the Sethite's. Sethites were the Sons of God.
Johnny
@Sing. OK, have read Jude in three translations, without commentary from anyone, and prayed for understanding. Spiritual beings are active in human existence, and the spirits of those humans, as Judes cites examples upon Adam, Cain, Moses, Balaam and others. God's spiritual force is the same today, as always, and as in the time of Christ. Then, he speaks of the church, and those that would distract from it, with evil intent, warned the readers, the direct letter recepient, and all in the future to avoid this. Now for the "speculation," or what the CHurch of Christ folks call "inference," as if it is absolute. I SUSPECT and I THINK, that the first part of the book, speaks of spirits, the archangel, devils, etc. to provide the reason there are those that are dividers, for their own personal interest. I do not know the problem that the church to whom Jude was writing, but I THINK and I SUSPECT, though do not KNOW, that the problem, was the nature of angels. False teachings abounded, significant enough to have the church dismiss such teachings as evil, among their teachings, that Jesus was not the Son of God. That is drastic. That has nothing to do with speculation about evil, doctrinal nuance of right and wrong, if that's what you are getting at. Anyway, my first answers are unchanged, as the questions you asked would be answered exactly the same, as I have read and prayed for the answer. And the answer does not come from me. I'm curious, though, why you ask us for answers, then threaten to dismiss us, after receiving the answer. Why do you ask, are you trying to support a view you have. If so, I would want to know your answer, but I assumed you didn't know, or you would not have asked.
Sing F Lau
That's a great imagination, Terisa.
When was marriage between Sethites and Cainites ever prohibited by God?
Are you not importing a much latter issue into Gen 6?
Do you think before you write?
Here look at this and think a bit please
6:1 ¶ 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.
Verse 1: who began to multiply? According to your imagination, 'men' in verse must be the Cainites... since daughters were born to them! So, only Cainites were multiplying on the face of the earth?????????
You are OFFFFFFFF from the starting point!
Verse 1 is a GENERAL statement of men (not Cainites as you conveniently imagined!) multiplying in obedience to God's command to multiply and be fruitful!
Charles
Sing, a question, are you a traducianist or a creationist? What is the origin of the human 'soul'?
Sing F Lau
Johnny @ "I'm curious, though, why you ask us for answers, then threaten to dismiss us, after receiving the answer. Why do you ask, are you trying to support a view you have. If so, I would want to know your answer, but I assumed you didn't know, or you would not have asked."
============
Your answers are dismissed AFTER I have demonstrated that your answers are inherently inconsistent and contradicting. If you think I have unreasonably dismissed your answers, you have the right to reply!
Why do I ask? To HELP folks THINK who hardly think anymore.
Am I trying to support a view I have? Not really, only to demand CONSISTENT and NON-CONTRADICTORY answers that will lead to the inevitable truth.
You want to know my answers? I don't give answers. I want people to find the answers for themselves... by getting them to answer the questions for me. That's the way I teach them to learn a bit. Many don't like my method... doesn't bother me. No spoon feeding here! People get choked!
There are questions I ask to teach; there are questions I asked to learn... and there are questions I ask BOTH to learn and to teach!
Sing F Lau
Charles, what's a traducianist? Big word for me. Honest.
Soul? Is it the same as 'spirit'?
Gen 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
My basic understanding about soul: when body and spirit are in union, we have a living soul. So, a living soul consists of body and spirit in union.
Often soul and spirit are used interchangeably.
Charles
traducianism is the belief that the 'soul' is propagated from Adam through the parents to each individual; creationism is the belief that each individual has a created 'soul' and not propagated. Usually the traducianist hold that the sin of Adam is transmited by seminal transmission and the creationist hold that the sin of Adam is transmited by legal or forensic decree. I am not sure what view i hold however I tend to hold (lean) toward a seminal transmission which seems to fit in with conception being the beginning of human life.
The relevance to the thread is the statement "my spirit shall not always dwell with man" JMO
Charles
most 'scholars' go with creationism - supports the federalist view of atonement
Sing F Lau
"my spirit shall not always dwell with man" JMO
versus
"And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always STRIVE WITH man..." KJV
Charles
LOL my grandson was trying to tell me something when i typed that!!! Papa, Papa, Papa -strive!!!
maybe that explains other translations - grandkids!!!
JimC
The sons of God are not angels in Gen 6. They are the sons of Seth who feared the LORD (Gen 4:26). The daughters of men are ungodly daughters of Cain. Affinity is the reason God destroyed the earth. To ascribe the ability to procreate would mean they have the power to incarnate like the Word, which angels are not given.
Charles
that is the stated view of CIS!
Sing F Lau
JimC, I have heard ALL the arguments before. Not convinced they are even adequate to explain what happened. Have you read some of the above comments? Read some, and think some. Thanks.
Here is one to a comment, "Gen 6: Cainite and the Sethite's. Sethites were the Sons of God."
When was marriage between Sethites and Cainites ever prohibited by God? Are you not importing a much later issue into Gen 6?
Do you think before you write?
Here look at this and think a bit please
6:1 ¶ 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.
Verse 1: who began to multiply? According to your imagination, 'men' in verse must be the Cainites... since daughters were born to them! So, only Cainites were multiplying on the face of the earth?????????
Verse 1 is a GENERAL statement of men (not Cainites as you conveniently imagined!) multiplying in obedience to God's command to multiply and be fruitful!
You are OFFFFFFFF from the starting point!
JimC
Angels "appear" as flesh, but are not truly flesh. The angels appeared as men, and one was even referenced as God himself. (Gen 18:22) I suppose you believe in theophanies and christophanies, too? Your reformed roots are showing.
JimC
Rom 8:19 For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.
Is the creation waiting for the angels or Elect?
Sing F Lau
JimC, perhaps I need to show you Scriptures!
Gen 19:
1 ¶ And there came two angels to Sodom at even; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom: and Lot seeing them rose up to meet them; and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground;
2 And he said, Behold now, my lords, turn in, I pray... you, into your servant’s house, and tarry all night, and wash your feet, and ye shall rise up early, and go on your ways. And they said, Nay; but we will abide in the street all night.
3 And he pressed upon them greatly; and they turned in unto him, and entered into his house; and he made them a feast, and did bake unleavened bread, and they did eat.
4 ¶ But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter:
5 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.
===========
In what form did the two angels come to Sodom - as pure angels or as angels that had taken upon real humanity?
Did Lot see the two angels as angels, or did he see them as true men?
Did the Sodomites see the two angels as spirits (if spirit can be seen at all!), or did them see them as true men?
Why is it so difficult for so many so-called 'Bible-only' Christians to accept the fact that angelic beings can take on true humanity, and interact and be involved in the affair of men?
Sing F Lau
JimC, Three rules of interpretation: context, context, context.
There is no need for you to suppose anything here.
We will stick to what we can glean from the Scriptures.
If that's agreeable, we will dialogue along.
You and I have the same roots... first in Adam, and then in Christ, by free grace.
PjW
It is ridiculous to say that the sons of God were of Seth's lineage and that the daughters of men were of Cain's lineage. This would imply that an upright nature may passed on from one generation to the next!
I understand sons of God to be in reference to Godly men, and not angels. The sin which God was punishing was not that people were marrying whomsoever they would, but that the wickedness of man had become great in the earth.
Why was the wickedness of man great at this point? because man had succumbed majorly to sin and had taken up ungodliness from those ungodly people.
It may so be that I am feeble minded.
Terisa
Gen 4:25-26, Gen 5:1-32 This is the book of the generations of Adam.
Gen 4:16-22 Cain and his family. This shows two people groups. No imagination on my part, if you take ch 6 and only read ch 6 your imagination will get the best of you. Chapter and verses are not self standing, the Word must be read in context.
Sing, have you not read Romans 12:10b? Where's the love? You're starting to sound like a clanging cymbal. (Terisa's Husband David S)
PjW
Just because Sing may be a hard teacher is no reason to start name-calling.
David S
1Co 13:1 If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. (2) And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. Read on down to verse eight.
Wield the Sword with love. Speak the truth in love, not in contention. This is not "name-calling" it is called accountability.
Sing F Lau
Terisa, A loving friend helps his 'friends' to think.
If that's an offense to you, this is NOT a place for you!
I don't tolerate babblers! I do tolerate thinking babblers though!
Why do folks take offense so easily?
PjW
Because depravity is rampant!
Sing F Lau
Terisa, I repeat: Do you think before you write?
Here look at this and think a bit please.
You wrote this:
Gen 4:25-26, Gen 5:1-32 This is the book of the generations of Adam. Gen 4:16-22 Cain and his family. This shows two people groups. No imagination on my part, if you take ch 6 and only read ch 6 your imagination will get the best of you. Chapter and verses are not self-standing, the Word must be read in context.
Think a bit, please.
Two distinct genealogical lines are indeed narrated. Both lines are descended from Adam.
1. But where does it ever say the people of one line are godly, and that of the other line is ungodly?
Gen 6:1 give a general statement of MANKIND multiplying in obedience to God's command for the past 1500 years. THEN something went seriously wrong because there was an ALIEN INTRUSION to that very natural process of procreation.
A noteworthy thing said Seth's line is that 'Enoch walked with God... and God took him.' What about the others in this so-called 'godly line'? Lamech's naming his son Noah gave an indication of godliness. That's about it.
To assume that the term 'sons of God' refers to GODLY MEN of Seth's line and that their marrying the UNGODLY WOMEN of Cain's line is to miss the GRAVITY and SERIOUSNESS of the matter stated in Gen 6! It is like attributing the BIG MESS of US economy to China's yuan!
Seth's line is called 'godly line' NOT because the people of that line is particularly godly in any way, BUT because it is that line from which Jesus came to us. There is very little indication of the 'godliness' of the people in the line, even though godliness of one or two were noted. Similarly, Cain's line is designated 'ungodly line' not because the descendants of that line are particularly ungodly and wicked. There were God's children among them too.
Sing F Lau
Terisa, Think a bit please.
Two distinct genealogical lines are indeed narrated. Both lines are descended from Adam.
BUT where does it say that there was no intermarriage between the two line?
You imagined that there was no intermarriage between the two lines until the GODLY Sethite MEN begin to marry UNGODLY Cainite women in Gen 6:1. Supposing that's true...
- why didn't the marriage among the UNGODLY Cainites themselves up till Gen 6 produce any effects as recorded in Gen 6? Why?
- And supposing that the 'sons of God' were INDEED GODLY Sethite men... what kind of godly men are they since they chose to marry the UNGODLY Cainite women? What a contradiction in terms!! Can have the noodles and eat them too!
- What happened to ALL the GODLY Sethite men in the flood?
Gen 6:1 is positive proof that men and women of both lines, as members of the human race, were marrying and multiplying, begetting sons and daughters, i.e. producing sons of men and daughters of men
When did God first make mixed marriage an issue?
JimC
Brother, it is you who constantly supposes things when answering. I jabbed you about the Reformed roots to see how you responded to such. Look at this: "Think a bit please." Or th...See More
Sing F Lau
JimC, thanks.
If I am supposing things, then it your privilege to show that i am doing so.
The LORD has His, "Let us reason together." Mine is simple, 'think a bit please.'
Sorry, you don't like it.
It is no indication of thinking to conclude that two genealogical lines means no marriage between the two???
Is it an indication of thinking to conclude that the members of one line are all godly, that they are the sons of God? Look at Israel!!!
No, I am not stating anyone in error. I am pointing out what they say is not self-consistent, and fail to explain the text.
If you think mixed marriage is the adequate explanation for Gen 6, you are certainly not alone.
I believe Gen 6 speaks of something far more grievous and serious.
PjW
I have a question. What does the text say that grieved the Lord?
Johnny
God never made anything an issue regarding his creation, other than righteous and unrighteous. OK, the Hebrews were told to kill all living things, leave no man, woman, beast alive. They didn't. They intermingled, sexually, causing a mongrel race. Yet, let's please remember reality. While the Hebrews were given the covenant of God, that was to ALL nations, including the Canaanites, the this and that "ites," that they were to slaughter, the peoples on this continent, and in the rest of the world, not only Mesopotamia and Egypt. And I have to reconcile this, with conquest of the "land of milk and honey?" by slaughter of everything. That is one, that I have to leave to my faith in God, that His will was done (it always is), and that errors made by the Hebrews, were corrected by God, someway, in order for the Messiah, to be the savior of the world, all the world, not just Hebrews, Jews, but Gentiles, and wherever a nation existed at any time on this green earth. And I still don't know where the land of Nod was located, and if the men there were godly (righteous), or not.
JimC
Sing, the mixed marriage isn't because they are descended from someone, but that the sons of God (Elect) married the daughters of men (reprobates).
Sing F Lau
Johnny, when we come to the Hebrews, the LORD Jehovah has imposed a strict restriction on marriage upon His covenant people.
The grave error is reading this restriction back into Gen 6. Anachronism!
JimC
Your thoughts about what would be more grievous to God are your opinions. The LORD has shown how much he hates affinity many times in scripture. Did he not hate it until it is mentioned later?
God hated Omri and Ahab and the wicked affinity that began with Jehoshaphat (II Chron 18:1). Because there were good things in Jehoshaphat, God punished the profane grandson and his sons (II Chron 19:1-3).
Consider Solomon and his marriages. He made affinity with Pharaoh and married his daughter (I Kings 3:1). And though this man was blessed with great wisdom and wrote this book and the next two of the Bible, the evil women in his life corrupted his wisdom and ruined his soul (I Kings 11:1-11; Eccl 7:26-29).
Johnny
@Jim. How do you know, that every mixed marriage of a Hebrew man (interesting, that it is always the men marrying foreign women, and seldom other way around), and among them, the elect individual man, was to a reprobate (assumed non-elect). Who knows why God made that command, to kill them all, and their cattle, but he did. Wouldn't that include the elect, from those nations? If there were no elect, then his covenant promise that ALL nations would be blessed, taken literally as we do on some things that correspond to our pre-set beliefs, would not have come to pass? May be man's thinking, because He kept his promise, but, again, I don't know how, and neither does anyone else. Besides, the issue of intermarrying 6,000 years ago, has nothing to do with us today. Evil has come, from persons using scripture inappropriately, as "the Bible says to not intermarry with other races.") Interesting discussion, but to me, not much more, of significance. But, that's just me.
Sing F Lau
Sing, the mixed marriage isn't because they are descended from someone, but that the sons of God (Elect) married the daughters of men (reprobates).
=========
Isn't that the same argument that the sons of God were godly Sethite men and the daughters of men are Cainite women?
What kind of idea is it that the sons of God (the so-called godly) end up marrying the daughters of men (the so-called reprobates)? What perverted idea of the term 'sons of God' in such view? That's the worst contradiction in terms I have come across! The godly elect Sethite men wholesale marry the ungodly reprobate Cainite women!
Think a bit please. You insisted that the term 'daughters of men' are the reprobates.
Let see what such idea MAKES Gen 6;1-2 day. You ready?
6:1 ¶ 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.
Your idea necessarily makes the noun 'men' as referring to reprobate men; reprobate daughters were born to them, the reprobate men. You are making Gen 6:1 say that only the reprobate men were multiplying, and only reprobate daughters were born to them! Are you serious?
There are elects in BOTH genealogical lines that are not mentioned.
But the word 'men' in both cases is 'adam' - referring to the HUMAN RACE, mankind as a whole! The whole mankind was busily procreating when something specific happened.
The distinction between 'daughters of men' and the 'sons of God' IS NOT between the reprobates and the elect.
The distinction between the 'daughters of men' and the 'sons of God' is between HUMAN and ANGELS who have unlawfully taken upon themselves HUMANITY, and intruded into the human process of procreation... in order to so corrupt the human race that it may be destroyed... to prevent the coming of the Seed of the Woman!
Sing F Lau
JimC @ "Your thoughts about what would be more grievous to God are your opinions. The LORD has shown how much he hates affinity many times in scripture. Did he not hate it until it is mentioned later?"
=========
You understand 'anachronism, don't you?
Affinity was never an issue UNTIL the LORD God made it an issue with His covenant people WITH A PLAIN and CLEAR declaration.
Before that PLAIN and CLEAR declaration, all mankind had was this over-riding declaration to all members of mankind: "Be fruitful and multiply" - with no restriction attached.
Sing F Lau
KEEP the reprobates virgins!!! Keep them, saith the LORD!
Number 31:
17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
Deut 20: Keep those reprobates women...
13 And when the LORD thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword:
14 But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee.
Johnny
I'll discontinue this status, Sing. I am more confused than ever, regarding the elect, reprobates, saved, regenerated, righteous and other terms, that do not come to mind. I'm going back to one of two classes of people, now and forever. Those saved by grace. Those not saved. Ultimately, is the final destination for our spirits, souls, or whatever being we represent in the futhre, and speaks and thinks now, represented, literally, or figuratively, heaven or hell? A pure, truth understanding of all details on this is well and good, but to not confuse me further, nor to add to the confusion, I'll go to another topic. Love the discussion.
PjW
Bro. Sing, why did God destroy the old world?
JimC
Sing, The text does not say anything about angels, and it is the logical fallacy of begging the question or assuming the initial point (petitio principii), a form of circular reasoning, to suggest or require that angels are intended by a few uses of “sons of God” for angels in Job 1:6; 2:1; and 38:7. There is no reason to connect these passages beyond the mere sound of words, which is contrary to obtaining the proper sense and the rule of rightly dividing (Neh 8:8; II Tim 2:15).
JimC
The sin is clearly committed by men of flesh, not by angels, for God declared in context that He would not always strive with fleshly man (Gen 6:3). The sin was choosing and taking females for marriage. This must be human males taking human females, for the sin was committed by fleshly men, and the sin was taking human daughters for wives.
Rightly dividing "men" in 6:1 from 6:2 is critical. You seem to require the word "men" in 1 to be inclusive of all the "men" in 2. This is a possible division, but what about "men" in 1 being all humans and "men" in 2, as it is tied to the phrase "daughters of men", to be those men who had daughters which were worldlings, not those that "began to call upon the name of the LORD" (4:26). The point isn't that all Seth's decendants are elect, as they likely are not. The point is there are those that began to call upon His name.
JimC
With regard to the charge of anachronism, you don't seem to think God had communicated anything to his people before the flood other than "be fruitful". Is this a fair limitation to the antediluvians? No one had the written word of God until 3,500 years ago when Moses delivered the first 5 books. How did Abraham know what to do?
David S
Mat 24: 38
(38) For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark,
David S
The sin was that they took wives looking only at their attractiveness (v.2).
Charles
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qh9ZZgDqzAg
MamboG
thanks for encouraging word Titus 3:3 this is faithful saying
Sing F Lau
JimC @ The sin is clearly committed by men of flesh, not by angels, for God declared in context that He would not always strive with fleshly man (Gen 6:3).
========
Read Jude 6 about angels who kept not their own habitation.
Read 'sons of God' in Jobs 1:6, 2:1.
Read 'son of God' in Daniel 3:25,28.
Let's consider Gen 6:3 then, since your have problem with it.
Gen 6:3 "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."
Few observations. Avoid sound-byte please. Bless the Lord for Brother Jonathan!
- 'Man' is 'adam. This is describing about the whole mankind.
- Did you notice those few words of the LORD... "for that he ALSO IS flesh."
What's the significance of these words?
Despite what has happened, man REMAINS flesh...
Despite what has happened, man is STILL flesh...
Despite what was attempted, man did not change into something hoped for!
Despite what was attempted, it was a dismal failure...
It is like in the garden... the lie 'ye shall be as gods' did not materialize!
The cherished hope turned out to be a nightmare!
Life and immortality is to be found in THE Son of God alone, and not from those imitator counterfeit sons of God in Gen 6! Get the point?
Sing F Lau
JimC @ "With regard to the charge of anachronism, you don't seem to think God had communicated anything to his people before the flood other than "be fruitful". Is this a fair limitation to the antediluvians? No one had the written word of God until 3,500 years ago when Moses delivered the first 5 books. How did Abraham know what to do?"
============
The LORD God is just and righteous.
If intermarriage was of such gravity that call forth such great judgment, a LOUD and PLAIN warning thundering against it must be expecting from the LORD God is just and righteous.
Even in the garden of Eden, there is:
16 ¶ And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: 17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
No, mixed marriage WAS NOT the problem.
And NO, no mixed marriage will ever has such devastating effects seen in Gen 6.
NO, even pure marriage among the heathen is incapable of producing such wickedness seen in Gen 6.
And NO, no mixed marriage has ever incurred such divine wrath anywhere else in the Scriptures.
Such divine wrath would presuppose PLAIN DIVINE prohibition and commandment against such sin, but there was none!
O the subtle serpent... he covers his steps well... so few see the trail to him! What a consummate deceiver! Ya, a mixed marriage is such a convenient smokescreen!
Sing F Lau
David S@ "The sin was that they took wives looking only at their attractiveness (v.2).
--------
I will reason with you a bit. Here's the text.
Gen 6:2 "That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose."
One great servant of God has taught me something very useful. Avoid SOUND-BYTE. Go for the SENSE! I pass on the same to whoever wishes to study and know the Scriptures.
The Hebrew word translated 'fair' in Gen 6:2 is 'טוב towb." It is not 'יפה yapheh ' (as in Gen 12:11 and many other places describing women's physical beauty). The latter describes the physical beauty of women. The former describes what is good, useful, and fitting for a purpose.
But the daughters of men were fair - them being female were "good, useful and fitting" to the 'sons of God' to achieve their purpose. So, all the daughters of men were fair. Just read again, "when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them... they were fair." And they were fair to the 'sons of God.' This is descriptive of ALL the daughters that were born to men! It is the femaleness of the daughters of men that constitute what is 'fair' ('good, useful, and fitting to achieve an end') to the 'sons of God.'
The foolishness of the common idea is such that it implies that the ungodly Cainite women were BEAUTIFUL, and the GODLY Sethite men grovel in the beauty of the heathen women!
Worse still, what an insult to the so-called GODLY Sethite men, if such were actually spoken of!!!
JimC
Sing, Noah preached loud and plain for 120 years. He was a preacher of RIGHTEOUSNESS. We do not have the content of what was preached, but to make a leap from something God hated like affinity to some science fiction, itching ears fable about angel-man mongrels which is never mentioned in scripture anywhere is quite a stretch.
What use would the devil have for hiding this in a smokescreen? He likes the preeminence, right? Your conspiracy theory dictates your use of scripture to speculate about some plot that never did succeed, if it were true. But if marriage in the Lord is the basis for the story and severe punishment (like Neh 13), then we have a useful story of actual events, which helps us to understand God. (Rom 15:4)
Sing F Lau
Some questions on Jude 6 worth inquiring!
"And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day."
Please answer these questions for me... deal with Scriptures please. Don't just read private opinions into God's word. These are simple enough questions.
1. What is the first estate of the angels mentioned?
2. When did those angels that kept not their first estate left their own habitation?
3. What happened when they left their own habitation? Where did they go having left their own habitation?
4. Where, in the Scriptures, is this departure from their first estate recorded, if is it indeed recorded at all?
5. Where did Jude get his information about those angels that kept not their first estate but left their own habitation?
6. Were all fallen angels involved in this departure from their own habitation?
7. Were all fallen angels reserved by God in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day?
Simple questions demand plain answers. Now, please tell us what Jude 6 says.
And tell us what 2Pet 2:4 say:
"For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment."
8. What is Peter referring to? How is this passage related to that of Jude 6?
Please deal with Scriptures. Personal opinions are irrelevant. Thanks.
If you think any of the above questions are invalid, tell me so. Thanks.
Enjoy yourselves, brethren.
Sing F Lau
JimC, Noah's laboured120 years (if he did preach that many years!) only made plain the true gravity of the effect of what had happened.
Gen 6:5 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
Of course, many would NAIVELY attribute this to mixed marriage!
Many imagined mixed marriage could produce such horrendous effect!
If you wish to call what is stated in perfect plainness in Jude 6 as science fiction, it is your liberty, Brother.
Jude 6 "And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day."
David S
Actually, the word translated "fair" or "attractive" must be defined according to context. The context is, if we may reason correctly, that men were choosing wives with no regard to spiritual character.
Sing F Lau
So, you imagine the context requires GODLY Sethite men choosing beautiful UNGODLY Cainite women?
Please think for a moment - would the inspired Scriptures designate men of such depraved character and value with such a lofty title as 'the sons of God'? That is reasoning perversely!
Look CLOSELY at the plain text again... Here read it:
6:1 ¶ 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.
Your imagined context will lead to this ridiculous ideas:
- the men must refer to the ungodly Cainites.
- the daughters of men were all ungodly Cainite women.
- the daughters of ungodly Cainite men were all attractive and beautiful!
If the word 'fair' refers to the femaleness that suited the devious purpose of the sons of God, then it is a trait true of all the daughters of men - and that's what the text is saying.
Daughters were born unto men as men. This is a general description of the procreating activity of men. But the attention is focused upon the daughters because the daughters of men became the target of the sons of God to infect the whole human race with their WICKEDNESS so that it would be destroyed. And they succeeded....
BUT there is that GLORIOUS BUT in Gene 6:8 "But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD."
Sing F Lau
Gen 6:2 "That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose."
What is the significance of the words, "and they took them wives of all which they chose"? What do they indicate?
According to a popular idea, it means these...
Those UNGODLY Cainite women were easily drawn to those GODLY Sethite man! They say great opposites are drawn together.
However, if there was any godliness in the 'sons of God', the ungodly Cainite women would be repelled from them! It would be hard for godly men to attract godless women!
But if the "sons of God" were angels who had taken upon themselves humanity, they were each of them Mr USA, to be thirstily lusted after by the womenfolk... thus "they took them wives of all which they chose."
JimC
The phrase sons of God does not have to apply to angels. To make it so is a very faulty assumption. There is no reason to run to Job for the three usages there any more than running to the New Testament for its usage of the phrase for the elect, justified, or regenerated children of God. Job’s inclusion in the Old Testament does not weight its usage of the phrase more heavily than the New Testament, for the Holy Spirit is the Author of both testaments.
Sing, I will ask a few questions. Please answer them if you can. Let's use the transliterated word Nephilim which are the offspring called men of renown in the KJV.
Error leads to confusion and folly, if the error is taken to its logical conclusions. If there were Nephilim, did they drown in the Flood? If they did, then there are no Nephilim; but there were Nephilim after the Flood, according to the use of Numbers 13:33 by the advocates of angel-human sex. If they did not drown in the Flood, then what did they breathe other than the breath of life, for all with the breath of life drowned in the Flood. If they did not drown in the Flood, where are they today? Did men eventually breed the angel DNA out of them?
Error leads to confusion and folly, if the error is taken to its logical conclusions. If there were Nephilim, were they fathered by the elect and holy angels, or the rejected and sinning angels? If the elect and holy angels, was this sexual intercourse with women a sin or not? If not, why not? If yes, where is it stated in the Bible, especially in this context? If the fathers were the fallen angels, did they transmit a sin nature to their innocent children (since son is transmitted by the father)? If the fathers were the fallen angels, was it a further sin on their part? If yes, where is it identified and explained?
Sing F Lau
Nephilim, men of renown!
Nephilim in what sense? In the literal sense of being huge size?
Renown in what sense? Renown in goodness? What does the context tell us?
CONTEXT, CONTEXT, CONTEXT!
Gen 6:4 ¶ 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.
5 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
The same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown... their renown had this PERVERSE effect: the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
Hitler and Stalin and Mao were renown men, and giants too!
Sing F Lau
JimC @ Error leads to confusion and folly, if the error is taken to its logical conclusions. If there were Nephilim, did they drown in the Flood? If they did, then there are no Nephilim; but there were Nephilim after the Flood, according to the use of Numbers 13:33 by the advocates of angel-human sex. If they did not drown in the Flood, then what did they breathe other than the breath of life, for all with the breath of life drowned in the Flood. If they did not drown in the Flood, where are they today? Did men eventually breed the angel DNA out of them?
==============
Precisely, Error leads to confusion and folly, if the error is taken to its logical conclusions.
To take 'sons of God' as godly Sethite men has hosts of problems... many of which have been stated, but ignored.
Nephilim does not mean the same thing in every passage. Context, Context, Context.
Num 13:33 And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, which come of the giants: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight.
Context tells us that here giants has to do with their relative size.
In any case there is an element of EXAGGERATION here by those unbelieving EVIL men.
32 And they brought up an evil report of the land which they had searched unto the children of Israel, saying, The land, through which we have gone to search it, is a land that eateth up the inhabitants thereof; and all the people that we saw in it are men of a great stature.
Those evil unbelieving men see themselves as tiny wee grasshoppers. Yes, they were grasshoppers!!!
Your argument is non sequitur!
Sing F Lau
JimC, I don't know if there any substantial questions I have overlooked. Remind me if I have.
Perhaps you may like to answer the questions I raised.
Surely you have understood those passages well enough to offer some answers!
Dellis
Genesis 6:3 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.
4 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.
5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
Aren't these the ones God drowned during the flood?
Sing F Lau
Dellis, please read the above verses again slowly and carefully....
"... with man... he also is flesh... his days... of man... his heart..."
This is speaking of the whole human race...
What happened to all the so-called imagined godly line of Seth?
Have you read some of the comments above? You should.
Dellis
No Sing, I didn't even notice that there were a hundred posts before mine
Robert
Sing I love you as a brother in Christ I know you see angels taking on flesh and mating with mankind but I can not see that, excuse my blindness, I think a great leap must be taken to get to that point.
Robert
Sing the angels first estate in the Greek is a single word meaning place, rank or position not flesh or spirit. I don not know a place in scripture when the sons of God are clearly spoken of as angels, as opposed to men, who are the elect are clearly sons of God. satan is a fallen angel but in Job scripture says he came also among them. It does not say he was one of them, Jesus appeared to Joshua in chapter 5 was Jesus flesh here if so was Jesus incarnated then reincarnated? I don't think so angels often APPEAR as men but are not flesh and blood as our LORD truly was when he was born as a man into this evil world. I believe that the first estate spoke of is position in the order of things with God Satan left that when he chose to deceive Eve. Never the less there is an Angel who was made flesh who knew all about our wretched state and has provided they free escape and will make all things right again forever. Love you brother.
Sing F Lau
Robert, your blindness is excused!!!
Do you seriously think the mixed marriage can have such DEVASTATING effect upon the whole of mankind???
Pure marriage among the pagans for long centuries did not produce anything near what we read in Gen 6.
But you will choose not to see it. You have good sight, but you choose what to see.
Robert
I know from scripture that man was left to himself, no word no church no nation very little revelation man left to himself can become very evil indeed, add that to intermingling with those who have been given spiritual life corrupts them as well. that is more logical to me than angel taking human form and mating with womankind, but God knows the truth and one day will reveal so I'll wait on Him my brother.
Sing F Lau
A man can only believe what seems logical to him.
So, you should believe what seems logical to you.
Malcolm Turner
Sing F Lau
O, thank you for your comment.
What make you think I have a problem with pride?
Perhaps you would like to elaborate a little. Thanks.
Why must it mean that God has no control over His creatures?
And what if it can be shown that God was in full control, then what?
And how have I disagree ungraciously with Robert?
May I suggest that your statement, "The sons of God were God's people who mixed with the wicked" is woefully inadequate to explain happened in Gen 6. Perhaps you may like to demonstrate it!
Malcolm Turner
Read your comments again, brother. Calling him blind and laughing arrogantly. You need to prove conclusively that what happened in Genesis 6 was evil angels taking on human form and having sex with humans. It sounds like something out of a sci fi movie. I have never seen it. Besides, angels cannot pro create
Sing F Lau
Malcolm, I suggest that you yourself do a bit more reading!!!
Go and read some, and all your objections you can possible raised have been answered.
They may not agree with them, then it is your honor to rebut!
Robert Cook said, "... excuse my blindness,..."
So, I out of courtesy wish to acknowledge his own words, "Robert, your blindness is excused!!!
And how do you know I'm laughing arrogantly? Just how do you know? I have ALWAYS use
Malcolm, you do a have a problem don't you?????
Perhaps you are a POMMY and is a wee bit more sensitive than the wild west Americans!
