What if?

[AV1611VET]

?
You refer me to a site that argues the case you made about angels and then assert that you people who hold to such argument are absolutely correct.

I sure did.

Remember saying this?

You invent...

Do you still think I invented it?

If so, did Adam Clarke, et.al., get that from me?

 

[AV1611VET]

LPL

Huh?

That says there ARE fallen angels.

-- Ya! Image that!

I wonder who 'invented' that up? don't you?

Oh, that's right -- -- I did.

Sure,...

Agreed.

Well, there's a switch.

Where DOES it tell us that fallen angels marry wives???????

Genesis 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.

HERE IS SOLA SCRIPTURE TO BACK ME UP:

Mark 12:25
For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven.

Didn't I just go through this with someone?

I'll see if I can find it.

(And what is 'SOLA SCRIPTURE'?)

 

[AV1611VET]

Didn't I just go through this with someone?

I'll see if I can find it.

Mamma mia!

I had this conversation with you in this very thread, starting here: 212

With that, I'm done discussing this with you ... you're a real piece of cake, you know it?

Have a good day -- people like you make me sick.

 

[sandwiches]

Ya -- I'm falsely accused -- yet, in spite of it, I defend myself -- and I'm the rude one, aren't I?

Defending yourself is not rude by itself. It's just that you're rude, that's all.

 

[AV1611VET]

Defending yourself is not rude by itself. It's just that you're rude, that's all.

Oh ... well ... if that's what you meant, why didn't you say so?

I don't feel so alone now.

 

[Huram Abi]

Yes, now you are thinking rationally and without reaction to other ideas that do not initially appeal to you.

The verse MUST mean something to the reader, and as you two fellows have evidenced, it COULD mean anhels or it might mean Spaniards.

Another idea that is the foundation for a satanic bible reading concerns this verse pertaining to Aliens.

The point of such hypothesis is to get on the table the best ideas and compare.

What we need look for is that one idea which had concrete rational, academic and even scientific support for understanding the interpretation which can also be supported elsewhere, Sola Scripture.

Essentially, it is clear that the verse by itself is meaningless unless we do analyze its content in the context of the rest of the Bible.

Do you know what sola scripture is?

I don't think you do.

 

[AV1611VET]

Do you know what sola scripture is?

I don't think you do.

It's 'sola scriptura'.

 

[Huram Abi]

The idea is scientifically supported.

Genesis tells us that Adam was a "kind" of humanoid (Gen 5:2) from which 22 more, now extinct, human-types evolved (see genealogy).

This interpretation is supported by Gen 6.
There, inbreeding is clearly implied between a lesser and a greater "kind" of humanoid in our ascent Out-of-Africa as the sole form of man on the planet now.

Further, we ARE changing into the new creatures, the sons of God:



John 1:12
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

Science doesn't support any of this. Nevermind that your 22 species claim has been debunk many times over.

Homo sapiens left Africa 150 thousand years ago, yet the oldest Neanderthal fossils date to ~200,000 years ago, and are found exclusively in regions of Europe and Eastern Asia.

But the Neanderthals were not drowned out. Their most recent fossils date to about 30,000 years ago.

So your "the flood represents the out of Africa migration" claim simply doesn't hold water, because 120,000 years after this allegorical flood, Neanderthal was still around.

 

[Huram Abi]

It's 'sola scriptura'.

Yeah, but this is America. Other languages are supposed to bend to our versions of them, including the Queen's English.

 

[Aryeh is Here]

Science doesn't support any of this. Nevermind that your 22 species claim has been debunk many times over.

Homo sapiens left Africa 150 thousand years ago, yet the oldest Neanderthal fossils date to ~200,000 years ago, and are found exclusively in regions of Europe and Eastern Asia.

But the Neanderthals were not drowned out. Their most recent fossils date to about 30,000 years ago.

So your "the flood represents the out of Africa migration" claim simply doesn't hold water, because 120,000 years after this allegorical flood, Neanderthal was still around.

I agree that he should drop the 22 species argument since we've discovered 26 or so different species by now, but do you really think he cares about things like the order in which events take place?

I mean, he is still claiming that the plant kingdom came before the animal kingdom. He doesn't seem to care about anything but repeating his claims, no matter how not-scientific they are or in how many ways they can be shown to be incorrect.

 

[Huram Abi]

Do you really think he cares about things like the order in which events take place?

Obviously, he doesn't. But that's not the point.

The point is to flesh out his oversimplifications with actual facts so that when less informed readers stumble across his pseudo-science, they have a better picture of what is really going.

 

[Naraoia]

Yeah, but this is America. Other languages are supposed to bend to our versions of them, including the Queen's English.

Sola scriptura happens to be in Latin

 

[razeontherock]

Please give me ONE VERSE of scripture that says angels marry wives, in order that we may correct jesus:


Matthew 22:30
For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

Notice the way I changed the bold emphasis. Disobedient Angels taking to themselves wives from the sons of men is not an event that took place in heaven. There ya go, and you're welcome.

 

[Huram Abi]

Sola scriptura happens to be in Latin

I know. I had to make the choice of blaming it on Cupid, since I was repeating it as I had just read it, or just shrugging it off with an apathetic non-explanation since I have no other reason on why I made such an obvious mistake.

But Cupid can only be responsible for in his own comment and not mine, so I chose the non-explanation. I hoped that the sarcasm was apparent in my comment. I wasn't really trying to justify the mistake.

 

[cupid dave]

Notice the way I changed the bold emphasis. Disobedient Angels taking to themselves wives from the sons of men is not an event that took place in heaven. There ya go, and you're welcome.

Sure,...
But even if the faulty reasoning, sons of God are NOT angels.

John 1:12
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:


And...
1) Your interpretation depends on Jesus meaning only good angels do not marry wives.

2) Then you MUST arbitrarily make the supposion that bad angels are those out of heaven who therefore...?.... do marry wives, another supposition.

2) You first equate "sons of God" to bad angels, (which does not seem scriptural), and then you assert those kind of entities do have mighty one as children.

3) This ignores that we men today and in 32AD also had the power to be sons-of-God, which are not angels.

 

[cupid dave]

cupid dave:
Where DOES it tell us that fallen angels marry wives???????

AV1611VET;58948651:
Genesis 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.

So then everyone who believes upon the name of Christ is an "angel?"

"We all have the power to become sons of God."

I think not.
I do not think you are demonstrating that sons-of-God are angels, especially bad one.
Sons of God seem to be christians.

 

[AV1611VET]

Sons of God seem to be christians.

In Genesis 6?

Acts 11:26b And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.

 

[cupid dave]

In Genesis 6?

Acts 11:26b And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.

Yes, that is so.
Before THAT, my point IS, that they WERE Called sons-of-God:

(All the Jews in 32AD who acknowledged Jesus as the personification of the ideal of Truth on Earth were called the Sons-of-God,... ie: Christ-ians thereafter).

 

[cupid dave]

Do you still think I invented it?

If so, did Adam Clarke, et.al., get that from me?

I use the word "you" in the plural sense, meaning you people who have promoted the erroneous idea that sons of God are angels in order to come up with an explanation for Gen 6:2-4.

It becomes ABUNDANTLY clear that you people asserted this untenable idea out of frustration to explain the passage factually.

We see how wrong you, (that they are NOT angels) , are when we examine the New Testament that tells us that sons of God are those who, in the end, are the line of ascent of those men believing in Christ:


Romans 8:14
For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.

 

[Huram Abi]

But... you don't see how erroneous it is to assert that "sons of God" means "Christians" when referring to the pre-flood people?

There is no "line of ascent" here. They were all killed off, remember? The point of the flood?

You conveniently overlook a lot of things to force your version to be true.