Genesis 6:1-4 and Jude 6&7 what do these passages mean? Why should we care?

[Postvieww]

Also, the offspring here were men; they were not monstrosities.

Were Goliath and Og men??

 

[Major1]

You'd make a great politician, dancing around the issue without addressing it head-on. And I appreciate you not 'embarrassing' me, as if you ever had such power to do so.

You want to deflect? Fine. But the question concerns relationship between angels and marriage, and nothing to do with breeding itself. Come back when you are ready to answer the actual question.

Does anyone else want to actually address the question?

When Jesus said the Sadducees didn't know we would be like the angels in heaven, neither marrying nor given in marriage, He said it was partly because they didn't know the scriptures. Please show from the scriptures where Jesus was referencing when He cited His reason. Thanks.

LOL..........The truth is that I am a lousy politician!!!!!!

Just consider your comments to my Bible answers. You are getting irritated and upset when faced with the un-political responses found in the Bible.

I really good political is one who can say......"You deflected the question" when in fact that question has been addressed 3 times now.

YOU did not like the answer so you keep repeating it. THAT is the mark of a good political person.

I would however say that I am amused that you would be so fixated on a comment that was made by Jesus. WHY would Jesus, the God-Man who is the author of ALL the Scriptures need to have a reference to something that He said.

He is God and as such can say and do anything He chooses to do my friend. What you are fixated on has no revalance to the subject at hand.

But if you will do a little Bible study you will find out that The Sadducees were misusing Moses’ teaching on what came to be called the “Levirate Law,” that if a man died, his brother would marry the widow and have children by her to preserve the name of the brother as found in Deut. 25:5-10.

That was their error they were using in an attempt to trap Jesus into a lie thus exposing him as a liar. There is no reason to assume conditions on earth in the resurrection will be the same as they are in this life and that is why Jesus said what He said. Moses certainly did not teach that they were, so the Sadducees were taking a liberty with the text that had no foundation in truth.

Our fleshly bodies will change. “…the doctrine of the future state was there in the Scriptures, and the Sadducees should have believed it as it was, and not have added the absurd doctrine to it that men must live there as they do here.

The way in which the enemies of the truth often attempt to make a doctrine of the Bible ridiculous is by adding to it, and then calling it absurd” as stated in Matthew 22:29.

2 Timothy 3:16-17 was also given by the Lord Jesus to Paul for a reason.............
"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work."

 

[SeventyOne]

LOL..........The truth is that I am a lousy politician!!!!!!

Just consider your comments to my Bible answers. You are getting irritated and upset when faced with the un-political responses found in the Bible.

I really good political is one who can say......"You deflected the question" when in fact that question has been addressed 3 times now.

YOU did not like the answer so you keep repeating it. THAT is the mark of a good political person.

I would however say that I am amused that you would be so fixated on a comment that was made by Jesus. WHY would Jesus, the God-Man who is the author of ALL the Scriptures need to have a reference to something that He said.

He is God and as such can say and do anything He chooses to do my friend. What you are fixated on has no revalance to the subject at hand.

But if you will do a little Bible study you will find out that The Sadducees were misusing Moses’ teaching on what came to be called the “Levirate Law,” that if a man died, his brother would marry the widow and have children by her to preserve the name of the brother as found in Deut. 25:5-10.

That was their error they were using in an attempt to trap Jesus into a lie thus exposing him as a liar. There is no reason to assume conditions on earth in the resurrection will be the same as they are in this life and that is why Jesus said what He said. Moses certainly did not teach that they were, so the Sadducees were taking a liberty with the text that had no foundation in truth.

Our fleshly bodies will change. “…the doctrine of the future state was there in the Scriptures, and the Sadducees should have believed it as it was, and not have added the absurd doctrine to it that men must live there as they do here.

The way in which the enemies of the truth often attempt to make a doctrine of the Bible ridiculous is by adding to it, and then calling it absurd” as stated in Matthew 22:29.

2 Timothy 3:16-17 was also given by the Lord Jesus to Paul for a reason.............
"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work."

Please quit wasting my time. If you're not going to address my question correctly, then just leave it alone and quit making excuses why you won't answer it.

It is true, Jesus could have answered any way He wished. Knowing that, He chose to answer it in light of their not knowing the answer because they didn't know the scriptures in that matter. Meaning had they known the scriptures in that matter, they would of had the answer already. All I'm asking you is do you know to which scriptures He's referencing pertaining to the relationship between angels and marriage. If you don't know where it is, just say so.

 

[Major1]

The fallen angels were called “sons of God“ because God created them not because they never sinned. Their fall did not change the fact God created them.


Adam was called a “son of God “ and we know what happened to him. He was called a Son of God inspite of his fall,


The term “son of God” in scripture is not always synonymous with being in right standing with God. The logic you posted above is faulty.

I have NO logic!

The meaning of the words "Sons of God" in the Old. Test. depend on LOCATION.

In Genesis 6, the location of the Context is Earth, hence the Sons of God mentioned there were men.
They were the children of Seth, the 3rd son of Adam and Eve.

In the 3 times that phrase is used Job the LOCATION is heaven, hence the Sons of God there are ANGELS. There were NO men in heaven.

 

[Major1]

Please quit wasting my time. If you're not going to address my question correctly, then just leave it alone and quit making excuses why you won't answer it.

It is true, Jesus could have answered any way He wished. Knowing that, He chose to answer it in light of their not knowing the answer because they didn't know the scriptures in that matter. Meaning had they known the scriptures in that matter, they would of had the answer already. All I'm asking you is do you know to which scriptures He's referencing pertaining to the relationship between angels and marriage. If you don't know where it is, just say so.

I am through wasting YOUR time.

Since you can not accept Bible truth there is not reason to continue with you. Now you can go fishing.

 

[Postvieww]

My dear brother, that is complete blasphemy which YOU are supporting!

I know your belief but how in the world can you read those words and still hold to an agenda which is Satanic and Occultuc??????

John 10:33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.

They accused Jesus of blasphemy for something they could not comprehend.


Don’t even try to come back that I am comparing myself to Jesus I am not. I most likely am more unworthy of His grace than you. My point is only this just because it does not make sense to you does not constitute automatic blasphemy.


My point here is that undoubtedly angels have roles in God’s kingdom that we just may not be totally aware of. As I tried to point out earlier which you glossed over, just because two angels are named in Enoch and not in our cannon does not prove they do not exit.

I believe your charge of Enoch being satanic is your opinion but not back up here except in your mind. That is just my opinion.

 

[SeventyOne]

I am through wasting YOUR time.

Since you can not accept Bible truth there is not reason to continue with you. Now you can go fishing.

You don't know. Ok. Fine.

Anyone else want to take a crack at it?

 

[Postvieww]

I have NO logic!

The meaning of the words "Sons of God" in the Old. Test. depend on LOCATION.

In Genesis 6, the location of the Context is Earth, hence the Sons of God mentioned there were men.
They were the children of Seth, the 3rd son of Adam and Eve.

In the 3 times that phrase is used Job the LOCATION is heaven, hence the Sons of God there are ANGELS. There were NO men in heaven.

So you don’t believe fallen angels can be on or interact with this earth?


Tell us who was the prince of the kingdom of Persia in Daniel 10:13 that it required two angels of God to overcome. You want to stick to scripture, so let’s do it.

 

[Major1]

Were Goliath and Og men??

WOW! You just came up with the first thought of such a thing!!!!

Since they are found in the Scriptures, why would you think that no one else thinks they are the real thing????

Of course, it would all depend of what a "cubic: is wouldn't it. I would suppose that we could agree on 10 foot. Now let me ask you a question.................Do people ever exaggerate????
Did a one pound fish ever turn into a 25 pound fish?
Did a one yard touchdown run ever wind up being a 60 yard run?

I say that for really one reason and that is as far as I know, no one has discovered fossil evidence of giant humans. Since man has dug up bones of everything else that dates back millions of years, it just seems to me that one would have found a giant by now.

So far, no concrete evidence of these claims has been brought forth. Although some claim the evidence was ignored, destroyed, or hidden by places like the Smithsonian, it seems more likely that the vast majority of these reports were hoaxes created for various reasons and of course there is always that word, EXERGERATE.

 

[Postvieww]

WOW! You just came up with the first thought of such a thing!!!!

Since they are found in the Scriptures, why would you think that no one else thinks they are the real thing????

Of course, it would all depend of what a "cubic: is wouldn't it. I would suppose that we could agree on 10 foot. Now let me ask you a question.................Do people ever exaggerate????
Did a one pound fish ever turn into a 25 pound fish?
Did a one yard touchdown run ever wind up being a 60 yard run?

I say that for really one reason and that is as far as I know, no one has discovered fossil evidence of giant humans. Since man has dug up bones of everything else that dates back millions of years, it just seems to me that one would have found a giant by now.

So far, no concrete evidence of these claims has been brought forth. Although some claim the evidence was ignored, destroyed, or hidden by places like the Smithsonian, it seems more likely that the vast majority of these reports were hoaxes created for various reasons and of course there is always that word, EXERGERATE.

I believe you would make a good politician!

 

[Postvieww]

Is it just possible the prince of the kingdom of Persia in Daniel 10:13 had a name that is not revealed in our canon?

 

[Major1]

So you don’t believe fallen angels can be on or interact with this earth?


Tell us who was the prince of the kingdom of Persia in Daniel 10:13 that it required two angels of God to overcome. You want to stick to scripture, so let’s do it.

That is correct my friend. Never have and never will for the Bible reason I have already given.

It seems to me that there was a conflict involving the Kings of Persia and heavenly help was needed.

Is that any different from we all go through today?

"But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me 121 days and Michael came to help me.....".

Does that say that the Price of Persia was a demon? It certainly could be. Could it also be a King of a kingdom, a human, that is also possible.
In the original according to Strong's.........
the word rendered “prince” - שׂר s'ar - means, properly, a leader, commander, chief, as of troops, of a king‘s body-guard; of cup-bearers; of a prison, of a flock.
Then it means a prince, a noble, a chief in the state.

If in the phrase “Prince of princes,” it refers to God. So far as the word is concerned in the phrase “prince of the kingdom of Persia,” it might refer to a prince ruling over that kingdom, or to a prime minister of the state; but the language also is such that it is applicable to an angelic being supposed to preside over a state, or to influence its counsels.

WHAT it does NOT SAY it that it is a FALLEN DEMON having SEX with a human.

 

[Major1]

I believe you would make a good politician!

You know, you are the 2nd person to say that today. Are you not sure you got it from someone else.

 

[Postvieww]

In Genesis 6, the location of the Context is Earth, hence the Sons of God mentioned there were men.
They were the children of Seth, the 3rd son of Adam and Eve.

This sons of Seth theory has been debunked over and over. I am sure if you go back far enough on this thread you can find it. There is absolutely no way from scripture to make the sons of God in Genesis 6 the sons of Seth. That is typically the false theory taught in many Bible Colleges.

 

[iamlamad]

I have NO logic!

The meaning of the words "Sons of God" in the Old. Test. depend on LOCATION.

In Genesis 6, the location of the Context is Earth, hence the Sons of God mentioned there were men.
They were the children of Seth, the 3rd son of Adam and Eve.

In the 3 times that phrase is used Job the LOCATION is heaven, hence the Sons of God there are ANGELS. There were NO men in heaven.

Hmmm. This answer sounds VERY logical!

 

[iamlamad]

This sons of Seth theory has been debunked over and over. I am sure if you go back far enough on this thread you can find it. There is absolutely no way from scripture to make the sons of God in Genesis 6 the sons of Seth. That is typically the false theory taught in many Bible Colleges.

It is very interesting how things get "debunked" only in the minds of some, but not in others.

 

[SeventyOne]

I say that for really one reason and that is as far as I know, no one has discovered fossil evidence of giant humans. Since man has dug up bones of everything else that dates back millions of years, it just seems to me that one would have found a giant by now.

Newspaper Accounts of Giants

Bookofresearch

Steve Quayle - Genesis 6 GIANTS

Giants in Those Days--Historical News Articles Featuring Ancient Giants ---Page 19

Giant skeleton reports in old newspapers | True Freethinker

Giants: Truth or Myth? – News Articles about Giants published in the 1800’s and early 1900’s

Old Newspaper Articles of Giant Skeleton Discoveries

 

[iamlamad]

Is it just possible the prince of the kingdom of Persia in Daniel 10:13 had a name that is not revealed in our canon?

Without a doubt this is true. I cannot imagine angels meeting and talking without a name involved;

"I'm angel number 1,347,841. What's your number?"

 

[Major1]

Is it just possible the prince of the kingdom of Persia in Daniel 10:13 had a name that is not revealed in our canon?

NO!

There is NO specific proof that the "Prince" was a fallen angel as I posted the reason on another post for you.

What you are saying my friend goes all the way back to where we began this conversation.

Deut. 4:2..............
"Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the LORD your God that I give you".

That is exactly what you are doing. Friend......it just is not there.

Again, if you want to believe all that nonsense, go right ahead and do so. But you can not believe it and say that it is Biblical. It is YOUR thinking and it is not found in the Bible but you can do as you wish.

 

[Postvieww]

You know, you are the 2nd person to say that today. Are you not sure you got it from someone else.

I did I was agreeing with him.