'Daughters of MAN' - the FEMALE offspring of MAN generally,
and not the daughters of Cainites as many love to imagine.
and not the daughters of Cainites as many love to imagine.
The 'daughters of man' refer to the female offspring of the whole mankind.
It is the femaleness of the daughters of man that is emphasized.
The daughters of man were fair because of their femaleness.
In that sense all the daughters of man were fair.
But so many would take 'fair' describing the beauty of all the Cainite women!
'Fair' - ('towb' tobe from 02895; TWOT) means good or fitting or suitable for a definite purpose.
The daughters of man were fair because of their femaleness.
In that sense all the daughters of man were fair.
But so many would take 'fair' describing the beauty of all the Cainite women!
'Fair' - ('towb' tobe from 02895; TWOT) means good or fitting or suitable for a definite purpose.
The 'sons of God' saw that the 'daughters of man' were fair,
that is, good, appropriate and suitable for their SINISTER purpose.
that is, good, appropriate and suitable for their SINISTER purpose.
The angels that sinned:
- who were they?
- who were they?
- how did they sin?
- when did they sin?
- why did they sin?
- what was the effect of their sin?
- how were they judged?
- how were they judged?
- etc?
PjW
Thursday at 1:51am
https://www.facebook.com/pj.walters.9/posts/3772720789462
I have some questions concerning this:
2 Peter 2:4 "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;"
Who were the angels that sinned?
What was their sin?
When were they cast down to hell?
Funk
Bro. Pj, do you think that Psalm 78:49 harmonizes with Revelation 12:9? Truly Satan has evil angels chained to him whose lot is to operate here in this world until their final judgement. Great question.
Rhodes
One third of the host of heaven Satan being one of them, pride, when they could no longer accuse the brethren???? Just guessing....???
PjW
Bro. John, at first sight, it doesn't seem to be in speaking of the same thing or of the same angels; though it is noteworthy that "evil" is not always implicit of "wickedness".
PjW
Sis. Cheryle, pride being the cause has struck a chord within my brain, for pride goeth before destruction. May so be that were the case! Some brethren, against whom I have no great issue, think that the angels that sinned were they which left thier first estate to go after the daughters of men.
Rhodes
I thought they were one in the same...left their first estate and were Satan's angels...
Revelation 12:9 "And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him."
Matthew Ong
Pj: Beware of those that teaches: think that the angels that sinned were they which left there first estate to go after the daughters of men.... They might have hidden agenda to "unjustify" the Lamb of God's purity of blood. Ruth(one of Jesus Christ's great grant mother) was a moab. I used to hear from people like chuck missler and also others that do believe in such thing without real understanding of what they are trying to imply by hidden manner.
Burris
Pride is correct, I think. One of the qualifications of a bishop is that he not be a novice, lest being lifted up with pride, he fall into the condemnation of the devil. Sounds like the devil's condemnation was, or is, pride.
When? I imagine the same time as Lucifer, whenever that was. BTW, take a look at all the things that Lucifer says "I will" do, in Isaiah 14. Sounds like a lot more pride.
Sing F Lau
2 Peter 2:4 "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;"
I will give you my simple answers. Disagree if you like, but say why, especially you, Matthew Ong.
Q. Who were the angels that sinned?
- Those fallen angels that are involved in that specific sin.
- Not all fallen angels were involved.
- If all fallen angels were involved, then all fallen angels would have been cast into hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;"
- If that was true then there would be no devils and demons left on earth! But that's plainly a fiction.
Q. What was their sin?
- 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.
- VERY MANY smart people say this refer to the fall of good angels at the beginning, that their first estate is heavenly bliss, and because of their pride, they were cast out of heaven. But fallen angels were cast down to the EARTH (Rev 12:9), and NOT cast into hell, or delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment.
- Satan was still quite free in the days of Job! Satanic activities were still very evidenced during Christ's earthly ministry.
- The SPECIFIC angels kept not their first estate in the spirit realm... their first habitation, their NATIVE realm of existence is in the spirit realm. It is like the native realm of existence of the eternal Word before He was made flesh. These specific angels left their native realm as spirit beings. That was their SPECIFIC sins. They trespassed into the human realm, and became men and reproduced - bring the devastation and catastrophe recorded in Gen 6.
- My question: where in the Scriptures records such specific sin by these specific angels?
Q. When were they cast down to hell?
-They were cast cast to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment when their sin was judged... at the time of the judgment of the universal flood.
- Only those fallen angels who participated in that sin of leaving their own native habitation and TRESPASSED into the human realm suffered that judgment.
Now, raise some objections worth of rebutting!
Sing F Lau
Matthew Ong, in discussion, it is a DUTY to explain and substantiate one's statement and insinuation. It is no good to act like a COWARD, making statements and then hide behind a panty!
You said, "They might have hidden agenda to "unjustify" the Lamb of God's purity of blood. Ruth(one of Jesus Christ's great grant mother) was a moab."
I request: Please show how such view "unjustify" the Lamb of God's purity of blood?
Did you ever read the genealogy of Adam to Christ, and the account of the eternal Word made flesh?
You have FOOLISHLY imagined that Noah was an offspring of the cursed union between the sons of God and daughters of man in Gen 6. I said FOOLISHLY because even though it has been plainly put to you before, you are just repeating the same silly fiction. Imagining fictional objection is shameful!
Raise some real objections!!!
Blake Well, since hell was not even a concept until the early days of the church and was also a gross mistranslation of the original manuscripts, this is more likely just an idea that Peter had as the only possible solution to what he believed at the time. Seems legit.
Sing F Lau
Pj, rightly divide these two matters!
- the sin of pride that cause those guilty angels to be sacked from heaven and cast down to earth BEFORE the fall of man, and
- the sin of those fallen angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation in Gen 6, and were cast down to hell and reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.
Great men pride themselves in rightly dividing the word of truth, and then INSIST that these two speak of the one and the same thing!!! I give up on those great men!
Sing F Lau
Blake, does the OT speak about hell?
You mentioned about 'gross mistranslation.'
Could you give some examples where the extant manuscript was grossly mistranslated?
Also, tell us how those places ought to be translated so that we have THE right translation? Thanks.
Blake
Actually, I shouldnt say that the word 'hell' is even a translation, but rather a word that the translators inserted to refer to their own preconceived notions about eternal torment. The OT word that is often inserted as 'hell' is simply the word 'Sheol' which refers to the grave.
During the first five centuries of Christianity, there were six theological schools, of which four (Alexandria, Antioch, Caesarea, and Edessa, or Nisibis) were Universalist; one (Ephesus) accepted conditional mortality; one (Carthage or Rome) taught endless punishment of the wicked.
This greatly influenced certain words that became part of the KJV.
The Latin Vulgate became the official Bible of the Roman Catholic Church, and to this day, it is regarded to be free from any doctrinal errors by the Roman Catholic Church. The Latin Vulgate reigned supreme for over a thousand years and the doctrine of hell became deeply entrenched into the psyche of the Christian world as a true biblical doctrine. This was because of the complete dominance of the Roman Catholic Church throughout the Middle Ages, from the 5th century to the 16th century.
It is not surprising that the translators of the King James Version (1611 A.D.) were greatly influenced, both directly and indirectly, by the Latin Vulgate and they simply copied many of the translation errors made by the Latin Vulgate in support of the doctrine of hell. As you already know, the KJV was originally published with the spurious books of the Apocrypha, as contained in the Latin Vulgate.
The KJV has had a major influence on formulating the traditional Protestant Christian doctrine of hell, which is of course similar to the Roman Catholic doctrine of hell.
Some consider the doctrine of hell to be heresy of the highest order. Personally, I think it's the #1 tool of the church to invoke fear and to control and manipulate the masses. Without hell, the church has no leverage to use against people. Even in both camps...in predestination--you keep people wondering if they're the 'in crowd' or the 'out crowd' with no choice in the matter, or if in the 'choice' crowd, you keep people wondering whether their choice was legit.
Either way, the Doctrine of Hell is simply another tool to use against naive people who will believe anything a bible-thumping believer that wears a collar or carries a lofty religious title tells them.
Michael
In the Primitive Baptist religion, hell is never used as leverage for anything! Hell is reserved for those that were not chosen by God before the foundation of the world and leaves them in their fallen state.The choice was made by God! And his choices are always just and correct.
Blake
Michael...as i said...those ideas you have about hell have been pumped into the minds of believers for years until many believe it must be true. But even by your own standards, that belief is built on false information.
PjW
Thanks, Bro. Sing. I will study this out.
PjW
Mr. Blake, hell is a doctrine which has been also taught in most cultures of the world.
Blake
How does this make it true?
PjW
Where is your substantiation that we (Primitive Baptists), as you imply, use the doctrine of hell as a tool to use against anyone? We preach that there is therefore now no condemnation to the children of God. It is unfair of you to roll us up in the same wad as churchianity, and I do not appreciate it.
PjW
I didn't say it did. I was using that to counter your misrepresentation (that hell is only taught from the Bible) of the doctrine.
Blake
I didn't say that hell was only taught in the bible, but that hell was not a concept that was used in the original text...it was added during translation. Sheol meant grave. How else do you get the word 'hell' from that word unless is intentionally added. And we all know how vile and controlling and murderous the very church was that gave us these translations, and yet entire denominations have been built on this false information.
Without the doctrine of hell, the 'us' and 'them' theology and the 'elect' doctrine crumbles.
PjW
Sheol did not only mean grave.
PjW
The Roman Catholic church did not give the KJ translation. It was against such.
Blake
Ahhh. Seems legit.
Rhodes
I have a question about hell. If there is no hell, what happens to the souls of the non-elect? Seems like if there is "no hell" there could be "no non-elect" either. If there are no non-elect how are some elected. What are they elected to?
PjW
Sis. Cheryle, this is my understanding:
Election was purposed without the consideration of man being fallen or upright, and even without consideration of hell, as hell was originally prepared for the devil and his angels. If man had not sinned, Christ would still have His bride which the Father gave Him; that is, even if man had not fallen there would still be an elect people which were given to Christ.
PjW
Also, they were elected to be Christ's bride. As I said, this is but my understanding.
Rhodes
Wouldn't that change the number of the elect, which was chosen before the foundation of the world?
If man had never sinned, then would all men have made up the bride?
PjW
It doesn't make sense that it would have changed that number; the bride was chosen out of Adam's race, so it would be logical that it would not have been all men whatsoever, but all that were given unto the Son.
One reason I believe this is that Eve was made for Adam before the fall (and so marriage was instituted prior to the fall), so it makes sense that the Father would also have manifestly given a bride unto His Son at some time regardless of the fall.
Matthew Ong
Rhodes @ Revelation 12:9 "And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him."
Matthew Ong
Pj @ Sheol did not only mean grave.<<< Unless someone is born native greek speaker, lets not go the direction that they can be more precise than the scholars King James assembled who did a great task. The shear manhours combinations would distract us from the bearing of fruit of Holy Ghost.
Matthew Ong
Sing F Lau @ Matthew Ong, in discussion, it is a DUTY to explain and substantiate one's statement and insinuation. It is no good to act like a COWARD, making statements and then hide behind a panty!
--------------------
To others that was reading this, sorry for my late Asynchronized(post and respond later communication) on FB wall feed
--------------------
You said, "They might have hidden agenda to "unjustify" the Lamb of God's purity of blood. Ruth(one of Jesus Christ's great grant mother) was a moab."
I request: Please show how such view "unjustify" the Lamb of God's purity of blood?
MO: Videos was posted earlier in facebook on chuck missler and I have also written email to Jonathan Crosby about this matter. Why do not you check carefully with Jonathan as I mentioned and Jonathan already preached the same view that there were NO devils who became sons of God?
Chuck Missler - Return Of The Nephilim
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0gZMFD34Vc
John Hagee denies that Jesus is the Christ and is therefore an antichrist.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFv5ijz6s6A
Who is Jesus? Michael Brown vs Rabbi David Blumofe
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Qg9J6_ijFI
======================
All these three share the same view in some ways to the Rabbi David Blumofe (who plainly reject Jesus Christ) which like many others raised the blood the questions of blood purity of King Jesus Christ of Nazareth.
Chuck Missler - Return Of The Nephilim
www.youtube.com
Sing F Lau
Matthew Ong, You asserted: ""They might have hidden agenda to "unjustify" the Lamb of God's purity of blood. Ruth(one of Jesus Christ's great grant mother) was a moab."
I requested: Please show how such view "unjustify" the Lamb of God's purity of blood?
Why don't you just give a simple explanation how such view "unjustify" the Lamb of God's purity of blood? Is that too hard a question?
What's the point of quoting this and that man? Do you expect me to waste time going though those links to look for the answer to my simple question? You must be joking.
Sing F Lau
Matthw Ong @ If God is the Spirit and satan and the devils are those that were cast out with him, would also be spirits that need possesion of physical body. Did NOT the Bible CLEARLY show devils was cast out of mankind by Jesus Christ? If the devils(angles has the ability to materialized to mankind like flesh is a different matter) can do what the angles go, why do they need to possess a mankind's body?
Revelation 12:9 "And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him."
Uncle Matthew, your logic is based on fiction. And here is the proof.
You whole reasoning assume that when Satan and the fallen angels that were CAST OUT of heaven INTO THE EARTH at the beginning before the fall of man, they had already trespassed into the human realm. That is just pure fiction imagined by you.
The sin of trespassing into the human realm by SOME of the fallen angels (Satan himself not involved... because he was still roaming freely in Job's time) took place in Noah's time. It is those angels that committed that specific sin that are mentioned in 2Pet 2:4 and Jude 6.
I said before, there is no virtue in raising fictional objection.
You have not even offered a simple explanation of those two passage.
Why don't you do it?
Why don't you offer simple answers to Pj's questions, and we can examine them!
Sing F Lau
Matthew Ong @ If God is the Spirit and satan and the devils are those that were cast out with him, would also be spirits that need possesion of physical body. Did NOT the Bible CLEARLY show devils was cast out of mankind by Jesus Christ? If the devils(angles has the ability to materialized to mankind like flesh is a different matter) can do what the angles go, why do they need to possess a mankind's body?>>>
Another twisted logic. And here is the explanation:
You are equating possession of a man by an evil spirit as the EQUIVALENT, i.e. as one and the same as angels trespassing into the human realm by taking,assuming upon themselves humanity.
One simple question for you: The angels/men who appeared to Lot - did they take possession of some already existing men, or did they temporarily transformed themselves into real men?
Christ cast out devils that took possession of men. Is that clear?
You have admitted that "angels have ability to materialized to mankind like flesh."
Another rotten logic: "If the devils... can do what the angles go, why do they need to possess a mankind's body?
- First, you are comparing 'possession of existing men by the devil' with 'angels trespassing themselves into the human realm.' They are vastly different!
- Second, you are assuming that the sin of the angels in Gen 6 (and stated in 2Pet 2;4 and Jude 6) can be repeated willy nilly.
- Third, you are assuming that the other fallen angels are so BLOODY stupid to commit the same sin...KNOWING SO WELL that those angels that had sinned that way failed MISERABLY... ended up being "cast down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment." Fallen angels are smarter than you think!!!
Objections are acceptable in discussion... they must be valid and logical... and not fictional nor whimsical!!!
OK... please reply after your office hours... think carefully before you go blah blah blah!
Sing F Lau
Blake @ "Actually, I shouldnt say that the word 'hell' is even a translation, but rather a word that the translators inserted to refer to their own preconceived notions about eternal torment. The OT word that is often inserted as 'hell' is simply the word 'Sheol' which refers to the grave.
=========
Blake, you are probably a very objective man without your own preconceived notions about hell.
So I am glad to ask your objective assessment on a passage of what Christ said in Lk 12:4-5
"And I say unto you my friends, Be not afraid of them that kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do. But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him.
In your OBJECTIVE understanding, without preconceived notions, how should Christ words be translated?
Thanks.
