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

SeventyOne · Jan 4, 2018

Major1 said:
You said...............
"The names of Jannes and Jambres aren't recorded in scripture either".

Then what is this in 2 Timothy 3:8 ..........
"Just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so these men also oppose the truth, men corrupted in mind and disqualified regarding the faith.

You said they were not recorded in Scripture but low and behold, there they are!!!!!

That does not do much to support your credibility my friend.

Sorry, you can't have it both ways. You can't state Enoch is an occult writing because it contains names not found elsewhere, but then state 2 Timothy is not an occult writing even though it contains names not revealed elsewhere in scripture. Massive hole in your logic. You could say, they are there revealed to us because God inspired it, and I'd agree, but I could turn around and say exactly the same about the name of the angels in Enoch, and you'd have zero grounds to refute it logically other than to close your eyes, stick your fingers in your ears, and scream, "No!No!No!No!"

seventysevens · Jan 4, 2018

Major1 said:
You said...............
"The names of Jannes and Jambres aren't recorded in scripture either".

Then what is this in 2 Timothy 3:8 ..........
"Just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so these men also oppose the truth, men corrupted in mind and disqualified regarding the faith.

You said they were not recorded in Scripture but low and behold, there they are!!!!!

That does not do much to support your credibility my friend.

So you take a post from someone else and say i said it ?
This shows how badly you misunderstand what you read and how you interpret
I posted MANY scriptures verses from Enoch , including side by side comparisons to the Bible verses and you still don't get it , you still don't see the truth that Enoch gives glory to God every time - but for no other reason than your pride you refuse to accept Enoch honors and glorifies God

Amos 2
9 “Yet I destroyed the Amorites before them,
though they were tall as the cedars
and strong as the oaks.
I destroyed their fruit above
and their roots below.
10 I brought you up out of Egypt
and led you forty years in the wilderness
to give you the land of the Amorites.

11 “I also raised up prophets from among your children
and Nazirites from among your youths.
Is this not true, people of Israel?”
declares the Lord.
12 “But you made the Nazirites drink wine
and commanded the prophets not to prophesy.

seventysevens · Jan 4, 2018

Major1 said:
You are correct but it does not matter to our friend. He has more faith in the book of Enoch that he does the Bible AND right there is the problem we

who are Bible believers are having with what he is saying.

You just make soooooooooooooo many assumptions that are all false , you have almost no understanding

Major1 · Jan 5, 2018

seventysevens said:
You just make soooooooooooooo many assumptions that are all false , you have almost no understanding

The one and only reason you say that my friend is because you know what I have said is the truth and you have no answer to rebut it.

I POSTED the EXACT words from a book which you want to be included in the canon of Scriptures and showed you with the Bible how those words were heresy and in fact blasphemy and you can not accept it.

Why don't you just give it a rest and stop embarrassing yourself with these comments that mean nothing.

Major1 · Jan 5, 2018

seventysevens said:
So you take a post from someone else and say i said it ?
This shows how badly you misunderstand what you read and how you interpret
I posted MANY scriptures verses from Enoch , including side by side comparisons to the Bible verses and you still don't get it , you still don't see the truth that Enoch gives glory to God every time - but for no other reason than your pride you refuse to accept Enoch honors and glorifies God

Amos 2
9 “Yet I destroyed the Amorites before them,
though they were tall as the cedars
and strong as the oaks.
I destroyed their fruit above
and their roots below.
10 I brought you up out of Egypt
and led you forty years in the wilderness
to give you the land of the Amorites.

11 “I also raised up prophets from among your children
and Nazirites from among your youths.
Is this not true, people of Israel?”
declares the Lord.
12 “But you made the Nazirites drink wine
and commanded the prophets not to prophesy.
View attachment 217650 View attachment 217651 View attachment 217652

God bless you friend and may you be well and stay healthy. We are done!

Major1 · Jan 5, 2018

SeventyOne said:
Sorry, you can't have it both ways. You can't state Enoch is an occult writing because it contains names not found elsewhere, but then state 2 Timothy is not an occult writing even though it contains names not revealed elsewhere in scripture. Massive hole in your logic. You could say, they are there revealed to us because God inspired it, and I'd agree, but I could turn around and say exactly the same about the name of the angels in Enoch, and you'd have zero grounds to refute it logically other than to close your eyes, stick your fingers in your ears, and scream, "No!No!No!No!"

YOU are wrong. I am never amazed at how this works. Every single time when someone such as yourself has an off the wall, non-Biblical theology and is confronted with the Word of God, proven wrong by the Bible, you/they always then resort to personal attacks on the messenger.

YOU said the names JANNES and JAMBRES were not found in THE Scriptures.

That is an error. It is WRONG and you made it. Their names ARE found IN SCRIPTURE, in the NEW Testament in 2 Timothy.

You DID NOT say that their names were not found in the Old Testament Scriptures. You said THE Scriptures.

You messed up brother......stop trying to rationalize what YOU want to believe. You need to own it, live it and stop trying to blame others for your own mistakes.

SeventyOne · Jan 5, 2018

Major1 said:
YOU are wrong. I am never amazed at how this works. Every single time when someone such as yourself has an off the wall, non-Biblical theology and is confronted with the Word of God, proven wrong by the Bible, you/they always then resort to personal attacks on the messenger.

YOU said the names JANNES and JAMBRES were not found in THE Scriptures.

That is an error. It is WRONG and you made it. Their names ARE found IN SCRIPTURE, in the NEW Testament in 2 Timothy.

You DID NOT say that their names were not found in the Old Testament Scriptures. You said THE Scriptures.

You messed up brother......stop trying to rationalize what YOU want to believe. You need to own it, live it and stop trying to blame others for your own mistakes.

They weren't found in the scriptures PRIOR to Paul writing them down centuries later. Same as Enoch.

Think about it a bit, and you just might get it.

seventysevens · Jan 5, 2018

Major1 said:
The one and only reason you say that my friend is because you know what I have said is the truth and you have no answer to rebut it.

I POSTED the EXACT words from a book which you want to be included in the canon of Scriptures and showed you with the Bible how those words were heresy and in fact blasphemy and you can not accept it.

Why don't you just give it a rest and stop embarrassing yourself with these comments that mean nothing.

Problem is I have the book of Enoch and have posted Many scripture verses from it
that Glorify God and yet you say it is false
Obviously you are Wrong and don't want to admit it

Davy · Jan 5, 2018

Major1 said:
You make an excellent observation on "Even as" in Jude 7.

But if we look at the previous verses we see that verse #7 is Jude's 3rd warning of "Apostasy".

First warning was and the example he uses was Israel in their unbelief.
Second was the angles which kept not their 1st estate.
Third is the people of Sodom and Gomorrah.

"Even as" then IMO refers to the 1st and 2nd warnings of APOSTASY and IS NOT specifically to angels being involved in Sodom and Gomorrah.

Please read verse #6 carefully and when you do you see that it ends with the judgment of those angels. That is the end of the 2bd warning.

Again, look at verse #7 and you DO NOT see angels at all. It says "CITIES" not angels.

Now notice the phrase......"Having in like manner with these cities" in verse #7 ... has the meaning that all four of those wicked cities including Zeboim and Admah were guilty of "fornication" and the deviations associated more generally with Sodom and Gomorrah.

Jude reveals here that Zeboim and Admah were similarly guilty with Sodom and Gomorrah and the sin was Homosexuality among the humans in those cities. Failure to note this has led some people to interpret this as meaning that "angels" committed fornication and went after strange flesh (Sodomy) like the angels!

But of course when we study the whole Bible and consider all the ramifications we see that Jesus said in Matthew 22:30, "In heaven the sons of God shall be as the angels of heaven who neither marry, nor are given in marriage," indicating that angelic life is utterly and completely different from life on earth and one can not interact sexually with the other.

Jude 1 IS NOT speaking of angels who sinned in Genesis 6. Lets read Jude 1 shall we..........
"Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called".

As you can see, there is no mention in Jude 1 of fallen angels of any kind.

As for 2 Peter 2:4, I agree. He is speaking of fallen angels however what you missed and it is the key, the event Peter is talking about took place BEFORE man was put upon the earth, when there was a rebellion against God led by Satan whereby 1/3 of the angles rebelled. That my friends means that the fallen angles were " cast down to hell and were delivered into chains of darkness to be resereved unto judgment".

That my friend according to your own Scripture reference that the "Sons of God" in Genesis 6 are fallen angels could NOT BE FALLEN ANGELS" as they were all chained or in hell.

No use in trying to reason with you. You are determined to steer around the simplicity of the Scripture, even with what Peter showed that those angels' sin was in connection with the time of Noah, and that they left their first estate and habitation to take wives of flesh women that produced a hybrid giant race.

Here's another clue, but will you scan upwards and downwards in the chapter looking to push your crowbar into another disconnected verse to use as an excuse to deny what this verse is saying in simplicity? Most likely you will try and do that, which shows there is no reasoning with you:

Isa 26:14
14 They are dead, they shall not live; they are deceased, they shall not rise: therefore hast thou visited and destroyed them, and made all their memory to perish.
KJV

The Hebrew for "deceased" is actually the word for the Rephaim (a name for the giants). This is one of two places in the KJV where they didn't bring the name Rephaim into Engllish.

In this passage, the idea is about resurrection. These "shall not rise". And God has made "all their memory to perish", even in YOUR mind as an example of you not being able to understand what happened back then at the time of Noah. Now those born of flesh woman will be raised from the dead, even the wicked who go into the "resurrection of damnation". But these... these "shall not rise", i.e., won't be resurrected when they die, because that is yet another clue these Rephaim (giants) were HYBRIDS, and not a part of God's Plan.

Major1 · Jan 5, 2018

seventysevens said:
Problem is I have the book of Enoch and have posted Many scripture verses from it
that Glorify God and yet you say it is false
Obviously you are Wrong and don't want to admit it

Now we can go back and forth for a long time on this subject.

My dear brother, do you not understand the reason why the whole book of Enoch must be rejected.

Yes, I agree that you or anyone can pick out a verse here or a verse there which glorifies God. That is not the point. YOU are a very smart person. You have a computer and probably drive a car and can operate a TV remote control. YOU are way too smart to not understand why I am saying the book must be rejected.

On top of that, I know that you have searched the computer you have and you have actually read the heresy and blasphemy found in that book. YOU know how wrong it is. But because you have an agenda concerning the Nephilim and Giants and Sons of God, you are willing to excuse, and accept the production because you think it supports your agenda. Now, everyone reading this stuff knows that it the case.

If you take a steak out of the freezer and thaw it out and when you start to cook it you see that there are worms crawling out of it. Do you just cut out the part when the worms came out of or do you throw the whole thing away???? Yes, this is a serious question.

If you bite into a MacDonald's quarter pounder and find a long, black hair. Do you remove the hair and continue to eat the burger after you cleaned off the pickle???

Now there is no need to skirt the questions or give some kind of deflecting answer, YOU and I both know what you would do because it is the normal acceptable thing to do.

Gal. 5:9 says and I know you have read this............
"A little yeast works through the whole batch of dough."

That is the same application that one must take with the Book of Enoch. If there is ONE heresy or one word of blasphemy found then the whole product is suspect and it must be rejected.

I have PROVEN to you and the others that the very EXACT words themselves which are heresy and blasphemy and still in spit of those PROVEN, SHOWN and VERIFIED words you still feel the need to accept a work know to be a fraud.

BUT here is a fact of life on ALL Christian forums...........
" if something we believe is attacked, we react as if it were a personal affront".

What I am saying to you and have said before to others is not personal at all but is what I have posted from Enoch and the Bible itself. What that has shown is that the Book of Enoch is irrelevant, and its vaunted Chapter 33 is actually the worst inaccuracy in it; all this, besides the fact the book is horribly derisive against God: which derisiveness ruled it out as being FROM God, at the get-go almost 2000 years ago.

Major1 · Jan 5, 2018

Davy said:
No use in trying to reason with you. You are determined to steer around the simplicity of the Scripture, even with what Peter showed that those angels' sin was in connection with the time of Noah, and that they left their first estate and habitation to take wives of flesh women that produced a hybrid giant race.

Here's another clue, but will you scan upwards and downwards in the chapter looking to push your crowbar into another disconnected verse to use as an excuse to deny what this verse is saying in simplicity? Most likely you will try and do that, which shows there is no reasoning with you:

Isa 26:14
14 They are dead, they shall not live; they are deceased, they shall not rise: therefore hast thou visited and destroyed them, and made all their memory to perish.
KJV

The Hebrew for "deceased" is actually the word for the Rephaim (a name for the giants). This is one of two places in the KJV where they didn't bring the name Rephaim into Engllish.

In this passage, the idea is about resurrection. These "shall not rise". And God has made "all their memory to perish", even in YOUR mind as an example of you not being able to understand what happened back then at the time of Noah. Now those born of flesh woman will be raised from the dead, even the wicked who go into the "resurrection of damnation". But these... these "shall not rise", i.e., won't be resurrected when they die, because that is yet another clue these Rephaim (giants) were HYBRIDS, and not a part of God's Plan.

I am determined to steer through the Word of God my friend.

How sad it is to see good men like yourself so misguided by an agenda that you would purposefully distort and twist the Scriptures for your personal gain as you just did with Isaiah 26:14.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Whole Bible
They are dead - That is, the kings and tyrants to whom reference is made in Isaiah 26:13. The principal enemies of the Jews, who had oppressed them, were slain when Babylon was taken by Cyrus (see the notes at Isaiah 14:9-10; compare Psalm 88:11; Proverbs 2:18; Proverbs 9:18; Proverbs 21:16). The sense here is, that they had died and gone to the land of shades, and were now unable anymore to reach or injure the people of God.

Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers
(14) They are dead . . .—We get a more vivid rendering by omitting the words in italics, Dead, they live not; shadows (Rephaim, as in Psalms 88:10), they rise not. Those of whom the prophet speaks are the rulers of the great world-empires, who, as in Isaiah 14:9; Ezekiel 32:21, have passed into the gloomy world of Hades, out of which there was, for them at least, no escape. Their very names should perish from the memories of men. The LXX., adopting another etymology of the word Rephaim, gives the singular rendering, “Physicians shall not raise them up to life.”

Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible - Unabridged
They are dead, they shall not live; they are deceased, they shall not rise: therefore hast thou visited and destroyed them, and made all their memory to perish.

(They are) dead - the "other lords," or tyrants (Isaiah 26:13).

Whedon's Commentary on the Bible
The slain shall not rise again. (175) The word which we render slain is rendered by others giants; (176) but as in many passages of Scripture רפאים (177) (rĕphāīm) denotes slain, so also in this passage it will be more appropriate, for otherwise there would be no contrast. (Psalms 88:11.)

Major1 · Jan 5, 2018

SeventyOne said:
They weren't found in the scriptures PRIOR to Paul writing them down centuries later. Same as Enoch.

Think about it a bit, and you just might get it.

NOPE..........That does not matter one little bit!!

YOU made the error......."Their names are not in THE Scriptures".

The New Test. is included in THE Scriptures. Stop trying to rationalize and admit it and move on.
The more you try to make an excuse the more you embarrass yourself my friend.

Here........Let me help you with this.

"SeventyOne says............"Hey guys I made a mistake. The names of Jannees and Jambress are actually found in the New Test. book of 2nd Timothy. I said THE Scriptures and that was not the case."

And everyone says...........No problem my friend, we all do things like that at one time or another!!!!

See, piece of cake brother.

SeventyOne · Jan 5, 2018

Major1 said:
NOPE..........That does not matter one little bit!!

YOU made the error......."Their names are not in THE Scriptures".

The New Test. is included in THE Scriptures. Stop trying to rationalize and admit it and move on.
The more you try to make an excuse the more you embarrass yourself my friend.

Here........Let me help you with this.

"SeventyOne says............"Hey guys I made a mistake. The names of Jannees and Jambress are actually found in the New Test. book of 2nd Timothy. I said THE Scriptures and that was not the case."

And everyone says...........No problem my friend, we all do things like that at one time or another!!!!

See, piece of cake brother.

And yet they are exactly the same scenario, since Jesus indirectly references Enoch as scriptures.

I do understand you are not open to understanding the nature of the giants that used to reside on the earth. At one point you made the statement that people have been digging up bones of things that lived millions of years ago. Since you reject Genesis 1 and 2, I have no doubt Genesis 6 would fall under your "not true" category as well. You've been well indoctrinated.

DavidPT · Jan 5, 2018

SeventyOne said:
And yet they are exactly the same scenario, since Jesus indirectly references Enoch as scriptures.

Could you remind me where He allegedly did that? Would like to look at it a little closer. Thanks.

SeventyOne · Jan 5, 2018

DavidPT said:
Could you remind me where He allegedly did that? Would like to look at it a little closer. Thanks.

Matthew 22. The Sadducees tell Jesus about a woman who marries seven brothers who all die and they ask whose wife she will be in the resurrection. Jesus tells them they were wrong in their assumptions because they didn't know the scriptures, and then explains it is because the do not marry, but are like the angels in heaven.

The problem then becomes, where in the OT are we told about the relationship between the angels and marriage. In short, it doesn't, but Enoch does. So, if you find the answer in Enoch, and Jesus referencing the source as scriptures, then you have an interesting correlation.

Major1 · Jan 5, 2018

SeventyOne said:
And yet they are exactly the same scenario, since Jesus indirectly references Enoch as scriptures.

I do understand you are not open to understanding the nature of the giants that used to reside on the earth. At one point you made the statement that people have been digging up bones of things that lived millions of years ago. Since you reject Genesis 1 and 2, I have no doubt Genesis 6 would fall under your "not true" category as well. You've been well indoctrinated.

The correct word is not "indoctrinated", but rather "Biblically Educated".

No one said that Genesis 1 and 2 are "not true".

You are doing exactly what those who are shown to be wrong do and that is to place words into the mouth of others.

NO ONE has said that there were not "giants" in those days. There were large people then just as there are today.

In Genesis 6:4 we read.........
"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."

The book of Enoch says in 7:12............
"Whose stature was each three hundred cubits. These devoured all which the labor of men produced; until it became impossible to feed them"."

If a cubit is 1.5 feet as has been stated here on this site, then those giants would have been 300 feet tall. Do you actually realize what you are saying????
The ark which Noah built was 300 cubits long (Genesis 6:15). Do you mean to tell me that some women had children who were as tall as the ark was long? You've got to be joking! Such foolish conjecture is a violation of the simplest teachings of the Bible.

That is what you are preaching! That is what you are wanting all of us to accept.

Oh but you are saying that those giants were FALLEN ANGELS.

But again, Biblical EVIDENCE and witness of the Holy Spirit says in 1st Corinthians 15:39-40.......... "All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds. There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another."

There you have it, AGAIN ... celestial (heavenly) and terrestrial (earthly) are NOT compatible.

Just as a fish cannot breed with a horse, or a cow with a whale, so cannot a fallen angel breed with a woman. Also, Jesus clearly taught that the angels are NOT given in marriage (Matthew 22:30).

We know that there were giants in the Old Testament; but as seen with Goliath the Philistine (1st Samuel 17:4), he was only 9' 6" tall (not 450 feet).

SeventyOne · Jan 5, 2018

Major1 said:
The correct word is not "indoctrinated", but rather "Biblically Educated".

No one said that Genesis 1 and 2 are "not true".

You are doing exactly what those who are shown to be wrong do and that is to place words into the mouth of others.

NO ONE has said that there were not "giants" in those days. There were large people then just as there are today.

In Genesis 6:4 we read.........
"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."

The book of Enoch says in 7:12............
"Whose stature was each three hundred cubits. These devoured all which the labor of men produced; until it became impossible to feed them"."

If a cubit is 1.5 feet as has been stated here on this site, then those giants would have been 300 feet tall. Do you actually realize what you are saying????
The ark which Noah built was 300 cubits long (Genesis 6:15). Do you mean to tell me that some women had children who were as tall as the ark was long? You've got to be joking! Such foolish conjecture is a violation of the simplest teachings of the Bible.

That is what you are preaching! That is what you are wanting all of us to accept.

Oh but you are saying that those giants were FALLEN ANGELS.

But again, Biblical EVIDENCE and witness of the Holy Spirit says in 1st Corinthians 15:39-40.......... "All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds. There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another."

There you have it, AGAIN ... celestial (heavenly) and terrestrial (earthly) are NOT compatible.

Just as a fish cannot breed with a horse, or a cow with a whale, so cannot a fallen angel breed with a woman. Also, Jesus clearly taught that the angels are NOT given in marriage (Matthew 22:30).

We know that there were giants in the Old Testament; but as seen with Goliath the Philistine (1st Samuel 17:4), he was only 9' 6" tall (not 450 feet).

If the angels took on physical bodies, like we see in some places in scripture, you suddenly have the same kind. And since the scripture states they had offspring, then we have confirmation of their compatibility in that regard.

The Lord said the Amonites were as large as the cedars. And did I say women had babies who were as long as the ark? No, that's nonsense. Did your mother give birth to you at your current height? News flash! Things grow.

And just to show further how lost you are on this subject, I never said fallen angels were giants. Never. Not once, ever. Goliath was many generations removed from the nephilim. Whatever height he still had was just a shadow of what it once was.

seventysevens · Jan 5, 2018

Major1 said:
Now we can go back and forth for a long time on this subject.

My dear brother, do you not understand the reason why the whole book of Enoch must be rejected.

Yes, I agree that you or anyone can pick out a verse here or a verse there which glorifies God. That is not the point. YOU are a very smart person. You have a computer and probably drive a car and can operate a TV remote control. YOU are way too smart to not understand why I am saying the book must be rejected.

On top of that, I know that you have searched the computer you have and you have actually read the heresy and blasphemy found in that book. YOU know how wrong it is. But because you have an agenda concerning the Nephilim and Giants and Sons of God, you are willing to excuse, and accept the production because you think it supports your agenda. Now, everyone reading this stuff knows that it the case.

If you take a steak out of the freezer and thaw it out and when you start to cook it you see that there are worms crawling out of it. Do you just cut out the part when the worms came out of or do you throw the whole thing away???? Yes, this is a serious question.

If you bite into a MacDonald's quarter pounder and find a long, black hair. Do you remove the hair and continue to eat the burger after you cleaned off the pickle???

Now there is no need to skirt the questions or give some kind of deflecting answer, YOU and I both know what you would do because it is the normal acceptable thing to do.

Gal. 5:9 says and I know you have read this............
"A little yeast works through the whole batch of dough."

That is the same application that one must take with the Book of Enoch. If there is ONE heresy or one word of blasphemy found then the whole product is suspect and it must be rejected.

I have PROVEN to you and the others that the very EXACT words themselves which are heresy and blasphemy and still in spit of those PROVEN, SHOWN and VERIFIED words you still feel the need to accept a work know to be a fraud.

BUT here is a fact of life on ALL Christian forums...........
" if something we believe is attacked, we react as if it were a personal affront".

What I am saying to you and have said before to others is not personal at all but is what I have posted from Enoch and the Bible itself. What that has shown is that the Book of Enoch is irrelevant, and its vaunted Chapter 33 is actually the worst inaccuracy in it; all this, besides the fact the book is horribly derisive against God: which derisiveness ruled it out as being FROM God, at the get-go almost 2000 years ago.

Why don't you go back through the thread and ACTUALLY read it !!!!!
Now you just rambling like you are talking to a mirror
I have told you SEVERAL TIMES ALREADY that I have posted MANY scriptures VERBATIM DIRECTLY FROM ENOCH - even an ENTIRE CHAPTER
Why not actually pay attention to what you read instead of just skimming over it and not reading it
I gave you 11 different scriptures DIRECTLY FROM ENOCH and compared them DIRECTLY to BIBLE verses and they even use the SAME WORDS
Obviously you did not read it
As I have said many times ALL you have shown is your OPINION , as many times as you have called Enoch Occultic you HAVE NOT PROVEN THAT TO BE TRUE , all you do is give your opinion , when I ask you to prove what you say to be true you respond by saying that you don't have to - well no one needs to believe you either , and you lose credibility at the same time , I would think that by now after asking you several times to prove what you claim that you would have done it by now - so it us obvious that you know you simply cannot prove what you claim

DavidPT · Jan 5, 2018

SeventyOne said:
Did your mother give birth to you at your current height? News flash! Things grow.

Maybe so, but I don't think anyone born of an earth woman grows to 450 feet tall eventually though. I don't think there is even any animals that can produce offspring that grow into that size eventually, is there?

SeventyOne · Jan 5, 2018

DavidPT said:
Maybe so, but I don't think anyone born of an earth woman grows to 450 feet tall eventually though. I don't think there is even any animals that can produce offspring that grow into that size eventually, is there?

Since the angels who did that are locked up, there's no real way to test it. Considering the source of the male DNA, it could have very well been a highly exagerated version of what we see today when a male lion and female tiger mate and produce a liger, which seem to lack any growth prohibitor and can become enormous. Since we can see in the liger a type of what the giants might have been, then we know it is a possible scenario in nature.

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

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads