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

Postvieww · Mar 5, 2018

Major1 said:
The phrase "sons of God" is used many times in the Bible to refer to men, but more specifically, God's followers here on earth (see Hosea 1:10). In Luke 3:38, Adam is called "the son of God" and throughout the new Testament, Christians are referred to as "the sons of God".

I have dealt with both of these passages previously on this thread and will do so again now.

1. Luke 3:38 Adam is called a “son of God” at the end of a long genealogy in which no one but Adam is called a son of God. There were Godly men in that list and none were referred to as a “son of God” save Adam who was created by the hand of God. This passage supports my contention about the usage of “son of God” in the Old Testament. I fell to see how this passage helps your case.

2. Hosea 1:10 this is prophetic and has no bearing on the Old Testament usage of the phrase “sons of God”. It is not even the the same phrase. Is this latitude?

10 “Yet the Israelites will be like the sand on the seashore, which cannot be measured or counted. In the place where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people,’ they will be called ‘children of the living God.

“They will be called ‘children of the living God” is not support for the “latitude” you exercise in this case.

Any reference to members of the body of Christ as “son of God” is not relevant to the Old Testament usage of the phrase. That is unless you use great “latitude”.

My brother how do you question my method of scripture interpretation when you ignore the plain facts I’ve just repeated here.

This sons of Seth theory is false doctrine and deserves its own rebuttal. (Again I might add)

Postvieww · Mar 5, 2018

Major1 said:
If we read Genesis and the story of how sin entered this world,
1). we find that the sons of God are those who are faithful to God and His plan for salvation, from Adam to Abel and down to Seth.
2). On the other hand, the sons and daughters of men are those who are the children of Cain.

Let’s look at just some of the problems with this false “sons of Seth” doctrine.

1. No mention of Seth or Cain in Genesis 6

2. No reference anywhere in scripture calling the lineage of Seth “sons of God”.

3. If the linage of Seth were Godly why take so called ungodly women as wives?

4. Was Enoch, the son of Jared a descendant of Cain Godly?

5. No mention of Cain’s entire line being cursed.

6. No commandment in scripture forbidding marriage between the line of Seth and Cain

7. There is no link in scripture between the daughters of men and the line of Cain.

8. Ezekiel 33:2 Ezekiel was called oh son of man. Was he wicked?

9 Matthew 8:20 Jesus was called the son of man.

This whole Sethite view does not pass the scriptural smell test. It is false doctrine.

Postvieww · Mar 5, 2018

Major1 said:
A common misconception is that Satan and his demons were locked away in hell after the fall of Satan. It is clear from many Bible passages that Satan was not barred from heaven or the earth after his first rebellion, which predated the creation.

Thank you I have been saying this all along.

Job 1: 6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them.

7 And the Lord said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the Lord, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.

Satan was ask where he came from. His answer "from going to and fro in the earth". This meeting with the Lord was not on earth that is where satan said he came from. These Sons of God were not humans; no humans went to heaven to present themselves before the Lord in Job’s day.

I also agree with your timeline on the fall of satan.

Major1 · Mar 5, 2018

Postvieww said:
Let’s look at just some of the problems with this false “sons of Seth” doctrine.

1. No mention of Seth or Cain in Genesis 6

2. No reference anywhere in scripture calling the lineage of Seth “sons of God”.

3. If the linage of Seth were Godly why take so called ungodly women as wives?

4. Was Enoch, the son of Jared a descendant of Cain Godly?

5. No mention of Cain’s entire line being cursed.

6. No commandment in scripture forbidding marriage between the line of Seth and Cain

7. There is no link in scripture between the daughters of men and the line of Cain.

8. Ezekiel 33:2 Ezekiel was called oh son of man. Was he wicked?

9 Matthew 8:20 Jesus was called the son of man.

This whole Sethite view does not pass the scriptural smell test. It is false doctrine.

1. Correct.
Genesis 4:25-26.....
"And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew. And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the LORD."

2. Genesis 4:26......
"And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the LORD."

At this point in time there was 2 lines of humans. The line of Seth and the Line of Cain.
Seth = the Saved.
Cain = the Lost.

3. Bible does not say "ungodly line of women".
Genesis 4:16...........
"And Cain WENT OUT FROM THE PRESENCE OF THE LORD and lived in Nod and there he knew his wife."

This is the beginning of the ungodly line of Cain.

4. Yes.
Genesis 5:22.........
""And Enoch walked with God and God and he was not, for took him".

5. Genesis 4:11-12.....
" Now you are under a curse and driven from the ground, which opened its mouth to receive your brother’s blood from your hand. 12 When you work the ground, it will no longer yield its crops for you. You will be a restless wanderer on the earth.”

6. Sons of God took wives of the daughters of men. (Genesis 6:2) While we cannot be sure as to the meaning of this statement, it is evident that a contrast is made between the "sons of God" and the "daughters of men." Adam Clarke suggests that some believe the "sons of God" are the descendants of Seth, while the "daughters of men" are the descendants of Cain, who had rebelled against God and turned unto his own ways.
Sons of God took wives of the daughters of men. It seems clear to me that there it is evident that a contrast is made between the "sons of God" and the "daughters of men."
Notice that the marriage of the sons of God unto the daughters of men is mentioned specifically in connection with mans turning from God and failing to do Gods will.

7. Yes there is.
Genesis 6:4...
"The Giants were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown."

8. LOL! Is that what YOU think????
In Ezekiel, “son of man” means “human being.” It’s a poetic Hebrew expression that’s used with that same meaning in several other places in the Old Testament, for example, in Psalm 8, where the ESV translates the Hebrew terms literally: “What is man that you are mindful of him, and the son of man that you care for him?” The NLT expresses the meaning of these terms: “What are mere mortals that you should think about them, human beings that you should care for them?”

Since “son of man” means “human being” in Ezekiel, in the Common English Bible, that prophet is addressed as “human one”; in the Good News Bible as “mortal man”; in the New Century Version as “human”; and in the New Revised Standard Version as “mortal.”

9. Correct! I almost feel like I am teaching Sunday School again.
In the gospels, “Son of Man” means something different. It’s an allusion to the Old Testament, though not to the book of Ezekiel, but rather to the book of Daniel.

This expression comes from a vision the prophet Daniel had of “one like a son of man” who was given “authority, glory and sovereign power” by God. Jesus chooses this expression to describe himself because it communicates his divine mission without having the nationalistic and militaristic overtones of some of the other titles that were used for the Messiah at this time (such as “Son of David,” which he’ll be called later in the book). The title Son of Man particularly highlights the humanity and humility of Jesus. He will invoke this title repeatedly in the second part of the gospel as he speaks of his coming sufferings and death. But here it captures the authority he has, as a divinely-appointed representative of humanity, to forgive sins and determine how to make appropriate use of the Sabbath.

Major1 · Mar 5, 2018

Postvieww said:
Thank you I have been saying this all along.

Job 1: 6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them.

7 And the Lord said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the Lord, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.

Satan was ask where he came from. His answer "from going to and fro in the earth". This meeting with the Lord was not on earth that is where satan said he came from. These Sons of God were not humans; no humans went to heaven to present themselves before the Lord in Job’s day.

I also agree with your timeline on the fall of satan.

Agreed! The "sons of God" in Job 1 are angels without question IMO. WHY?????

IT IS A HEAVENLY SCENE! Because God has called for them to come to Him and report. The only place that God would be is Heaven.

It also say to me that Satan has only limited access to God until Revelation 12:9.

seventysevens · Mar 5, 2018

Major1 said:
Agreed! The "sons of God" in Job 1 are angels without question IMO. WHY?????

IT IS A HEAVENLY SCENE! Because God has called for them to come to Him and report. The only place that God would be is Heaven.

It also say to me that Satan has only limited access to God until Revelation 12:9.

Wow ! you actually agreed ! Amen you are making progress :oldthumbsup:

Major1 · Mar 5, 2018

Postvieww said:
I have dealt with both of these passages previously on this thread and will do so again now.

1. Luke 3:38 Adam is called a “son of God” at the end of a long genealogy in which no one but Adam is called a son of God. There were Godly men in that list and none were referred to as a “son of God” save Adam who was created by the hand of God. This passage supports my contention about the usage of “son of God” in the Old Testament. I fell to see how this passage helps your case.

2. Hosea 1:10 this is prophetic and has no bearing on the Old Testament usage of the phrase “sons of God”. It is not even the the same phrase. Is this latitude?

10 “Yet the Israelites will be like the sand on the seashore, which cannot be measured or counted. In the place where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people,’ they will be called ‘children of the living God.

“They will be called ‘children of the living God” is not support for the “latitude” you exercise in this case.

Any reference to members of the body of Christ as “son of God” is not relevant to the Old Testament usage of the phrase. That is unless you use great “latitude”.

My brother how do you question my method of scripture interpretation when you ignore the plain facts I’ve just repeated here.

This sons of Seth theory is false doctrine and deserves its own rebuttal. (Again I might add)

I hate to say this, but I can not agree with your thesis. I only call them as I read them.

1.
Exodus 4:22-23
"Then you shall say to Pharaoh, 'Thus says the LORD, "Israel is My son, My firstborn."

2 Samuel 7:14
"I will be a father to him and he will be a son to Me; when he commits iniquity, I will correct him with the rod of men and the strokes of the sons of men".

1 Chronicles 17:13 ...........
"I will be his father and he shall be My son; and I will not take My lovingkindness away from him, as I took it from him who was before you".

Jere. 31:20.........
"Is Ephraim My dear son? Is he a delightful child? Indeed, as often as I have spoken against him, I certainly still remember him; Therefore My heart yearns for him; I will surely have mercy on him," declares the LORD."

Psalms 2:7............
"I will surely tell of the decree of the LORD: He said to Me, 'You are My Son, Today I have begotten You.

2. Of course it is Prophetic. However that makes NO difference as the words used are the words said. Are the Sons of God today or will be the SOns of God in the last days is still the Sons of God.

God not only giveth us grace, but adopteth us as sons. He not only accounteth us, but He maketh us sons; He maketh us sons, not outwardly, but inwardly; not by inward grace only, but by His Spirit: not only by the birth from the Spirit, but in the Only-Begotten Son; sons of God, because members of Christ, the Son of God; sons of God, by adoption, as Christ is by Nature; but actual sons of God, as Christ is actually and eternally the Son of God. God is our Father, not by nature, but by grace; yet He is really our Father, since we are born of Him, “sons of the living God,” born of the Spirit.

Major1 · Mar 5, 2018

seventysevens said:
Wow ! you actually agreed ! Amen you are making progress

Now that is a real blessing. Thank you. I am really trying to learn and be good!

Major1 · Mar 5, 2018

seventysevens said:
Obviously angels have free will as well , if they did not have then they would not rebel and satan would not have rebelled against God and would not have been able to convince 1/3 of the angels to follow him instead of the Creator who made them .

Therefore we know that angels are not programmed robots incapable of making decisions on their own.
I have not seen any scripture that shows that God intentionally created any being or anything that was intentionally created to be evil or for evil purpose. All scriptures that I recall shows that after God created - it was Good-.

If you kidnap a person and take them to a desert island to prove you love them -the very act of kidnapping or forcing a person to do something they would not do voluntarily is the opposite of love and not love at all.

Freewill is the allowing for that things may not go as you had hoped for ,as such when God created mankind he knew that some would choose to not love God - just as some angels chose to leave their first home in heaven where they lived with God their creator and they chose to leave heaven and follow hasatan which this very act of rebellion is sin. As such they are not allowed back into their former home of heaven.

Right now mankind is experimenting with genetic cloning - not just cloning a copy of a person or animal; but the mixing of humans with animals creating bizarre creatures during the process of experimentation. Seeking some kind of superhuman and seeking to find if human genetics can successfully be mixed with animal genetics saying it is for advanced medical research .

Consider that God did not create evil angels , but those evil angels were good angels that made their own choices to follow a rebellious lucifer who wanted his own way and had intended on a mutiny that failed.

In the book of Revelation we see that there are some seriously evil demons that are locked into the abyss and will be released unto mankind to be tormented by these demons described as locusts with faces of men and tails that sting ,
Scripture does not ever show that real locusts that we see on earth are evil nor any animal as evil because evil comes from knowing good and evil and making a choice to do something other than what God has said is good which results in evil.

Animals are not created evil, such as a lion kills for food , it is designed that way and is not evil .

Scripture tells us that these demon creatures are locked in the abyss - God has never locked anything into the abyss that had not performed some type of evil sinful doings ; bears , scorpions and sharks do not commit evil doings as they just do as they are genetically designed to do -
Monasteries have monks living there and there view is Sex is seen as a serious monastic transgression.
Celibacy is mandatory, and also in Heaven is the same as sex without being married is a sin and any sin is not allowed in heaven , as such angles would not be having sex in heaven as there are no female angels to engage in sex with - but there is no scripture that even implies that angels cannot have sex or not have the anatomy to perform sex , it very likely angels simply abstain from it as monks do and now that a result has been shown that they are not allowed in heaven if they engage in sex and they know what would happen to them if they did decide to have sex with women on earth .

To perform an evil act one has to know what they are doing is against Gods will - a decision to do something that opposes what God would have them do.

Those demon locusts are locked in the prison of the abyss for committing some evil act that is against Gods will , so we would have to seek the scriptures to find who they are -how they happen to appear as they do and what they did to be locked in the abyss being prevented from residing on earths surface .,
They must be an eternal being as there is no food sources in the abyss and since they are in prison - why are they there and what did they do to be put there ?
Seems that there is a real possibility that the reason they are there is because they had fornicated with humans and animals or are the result of that and have created a hybrid species that God has cast into the abyss to prevent them from associating with any humans or animals .

While some people refuse to accept this they have no evidence that it has not happened - just only their own personal opinion of how they personally view things .
In the Old Testament times they had no bible to consult with as only a few scrolls of writings were available and in the New Testament times they were in process over hundreds of years creating the New Testament scrolls .
There are also books of the Apocrypha that was accepted as truth during the days it was written , however books such as The Book of Angels seem to cause people to be worshiping Angels and it was decided in order to prevent continued confusion on who should be worshiped that book was not included in the canonized version of scripture.

Which brings up another point, the Holy scriptures do not instruct anyone to create a canon version of scripture - Almighty God did not say to create it - Men decided to create it - this is likened unto why their are various denominations - Men decided that they would be the determining factor of what is included in the canon and what is not included and thus we have a a few different versions of canonized bibles ,
In some versions of canonized bibles they include the book of Enoch and while other versions do not include this book; so we see it is men who decide what is and what is not bible truth ,

Even today there are people who believe Mary had no sin and equal to Jesus - there are people today that insist that if you did not get dunked in a tank of water you will not receive eternal life with Christ , which brings this back to the point of focusing on

ALL of scripture is to used to determine who are those that are in the pit to be released to torment men ,
God did not create evil beings to torment men who are created in His Own image , but someone did something to cause them to be created - since God did not create them - who did ?

Some topics in scripture- some people today just cannot accept things in any way except their own personal view , the amount of discord among the body of Christ that exists simply because some people refuse to accept a rapture before the great tribulation has caused great division for no other reason than some people cannot accept it even though they cannot possibly prove it wrong ,.

As the same with the topic of this thread people get so stirred up and angry because they do not want anyone to believe it has truth even though they cannot prove it does not - God does not provide all info on some topics until HE is ready for it to be fulfilled

Well said my brother. What happens on forums such as these, is that some people get angry because their way of thinking for years can be challenged by others and that makes them mad.

"How dare you think or understand this verse different than I do".

Of course the root of that is pride and we all have it to a degree.

I agree completely on the evil comment. God only made GOOD. WE- Adam as the Federal Head of man brought in sin and sin destroys everything it touches. That was of course by FREE choice.

And yes, right here on this very forum are people I have talked with that are totally convinced that Mary never sinned and in fact did not die. She was "Assumed" into heaven.

I would add to your comment that the books of the Apocrypha were left out of the canon for a good reason. All one has to do is read them and you know very quickly that there is something wrong with them as they do not read like the Bible and contain information that the Bible does not verify.

Postvieww · Mar 5, 2018

Major1 said:
8. LOL! Is that what YOU think????
In Ezekiel, “son of man” means “human being.” It’s a poetic Hebrew expression that’s used with that same meaning in several other places in the Old Testament, for example, in Psalm 8, where the ESV translates the Hebrew terms literally: “What is man that you are mindful of him, and the son of man that you care for him?” The NLT expresses the meaning of these terms: “What are mere mortals that you should think about them, human beings that you should care for them?”

Since “son of man” means “human being” in Ezekiel, in the Common English Bible, that prophet is addressed as “human one”; in the Good News Bible as “mortal man”; in the New Century Version as “human”; and in the New Revised Standard Version as “mortal.”

Major,Major, Major my friend it is you who made the link that both “sons and daughters of men” refer to the presumed wicked line of Cain. I was merely responding to your false assertion.

Major1 said:
2). On the other hand, the sons and daughters of men are those who are the children of Cain.

Postvieww · Mar 5, 2018

Major1 said:
Now that is a real blessing. Thank you. I am really trying to learn and be good!

And I thought it was you who was coming around. Should have known better. :oldthumbsup:

Postvieww · Mar 5, 2018

Major1 said:
2. Genesis 4:26......
"And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the LORD."

ISV Seth also fathered a son, whom he named Enosh. At that time, profaning the name of the Lord began.

2490 châlal, khaw-lal'; a primitive root (compare H2470); also denominative (from H2485) properly, to bore, i.e. (by implication) to wound, to dissolve; figuratively, to profane (a person, place or thing), to break (one's word), to begin (as if by an 'opening wedge'); to play (the flute):—begin (× men began), defile, × break, defile, × eat (as common things), × first, × gather the grape thereof, × take inheritance, pipe, player on instruments, pollute, (cast as) profane (self), prostitute, slay (slain), sorrow, stain, wound.

KJV And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began (2490) men to call upon the name of the Lord.

Do some research I didn't come up with this!

No problem if you do accept the above translation. Just ask yourself this question. If this was a revival that started with Enos did it produce this Godly line of Seth that all got sweep away in the flood save Noah and his. Which makes more sense a revival of Godly Sethites or the wicked world God destroyed?

Did this “Godly line of Seth” preach only to family and exclude the line of Cain.

This one line is Godly and one line is wicked doctrine makes no sense even if you are a Sunday school teacher.

Major1 said:
At this point in time there was 2 lines of humans. The line of Seth and the Line of Cain.
Seth = the Saved.
Cain = the Lost.

This is not supported in scripture at all. IMHO this is taking great latitude with the scriptures.

Postvieww · Mar 5, 2018

Major1 said:
Well said my brother. What happens on forums such as these, is that some people get angry because their way of thinking for years can be challenged by others and that makes them mad.

Not me. I have no problem being challenged. I have got my feathers ruffled when talked down to, but I expect to be challenged.

Postvieww · Mar 5, 2018

Major1 said:
2. Of course it is Prophetic. However that makes NO difference as the words used are the words said. Are the Sons of God today or will be the SOns of God in the last days is still the Sons of God.

Sorry my friend the context of words matter and you used this passage out of context to support your theory.

seventysevens · Mar 5, 2018

Major1 said:
I would add to your comment that the books of the Apocrypha were left out of the canon for a good reason. All one has to do is read them and you know very quickly that there is something wrong with them as they do not read like the Bible and contain information that the Bible does not verify.

I understand your point of view but they are still included in a few versions of the canon , not left out of all of them , It seems that it is more likely that people get accustomed to a certain teaching or teaching style and when something in put in a different style or manner it may be shoved aside by some . The canon that many in America follow was assembled in a way to focus on critical criteria to know all about Almighty God/Jesus and to follow him and his teachings and having topics that cause controversy are not welcomed , even within the same canon as now in modern day the same topics are come to be controversial and simply refused to be taught in 90+% percent of all churches in America , such as bible prophecy , other topics have been massaged as well , Example such as someone who grows up drinking powdered milk gets accustomed to it's flavor and texture is then offered the real deal milk and they reject it not because there is something wrong with it nut simply because it is not what they are accustomed to or what they expect it to be

we know mankind is fallible and even well know historians offer a slant to their view in favor instead of facts they rather not talk about , myself keep an open mind to things that can be controversial because it is not wise to ignore things just because they are diverse or someone else does not believe , I am not going to follow what someone else does or does not believe , I follow Jesus and know He will provide all answers someday soon . Those hybrid creatures in the abyss were not created by God , but someone caused them to exist , it not important to salvation to know who made them exist , but to determine plausible condition for how they came into existence is interesting as they are eternal beings that don't need to eat food and God did not create them so how were they created ? Except for interbreeding of eternal beings with non eternal beings how can it be explained ? If they are a creation of God , scripture would have noted that , maybe it has written been in a book that some people don't want to read , surprisingly many people don't want to read Revelation because it scares them

Major1 · Mar 6, 2018

Postvieww said:
ISV Seth also fathered a son, whom he named Enosh. At that time, profaning the name of the Lord began.

2490 châlal, khaw-lal'; a primitive root (compare H2470); also denominative (from H2485) properly, to bore, i.e. (by implication) to wound, to dissolve; figuratively, to profane (a person, place or thing), to break (one's word), to begin (as if by an 'opening wedge'); to play (the flute):—begin (× men began), defile, × break, defile, × eat (as common things), × first, × gather the grape thereof, × take inheritance, pipe, player on instruments, pollute, (cast as) profane (self), prostitute, slay (slain), sorrow, stain, wound.

KJV And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began (2490) men to call upon the name of the Lord.

Do some research I didn't come up with this!

No problem if you do accept the above translation. Just ask yourself this question. If this was a revival that started with Enos did it produce this Godly line of Seth that all got sweep away in the flood save Noah and his. Which makes more sense a revival of Godly Sethites or the wicked world God destroyed?

Did this “Godly line of Seth” preach only to family and exclude the line of Cain.

This one line is Godly and one line is wicked doctrine makes no sense even if you are a Sunday school teacher.

This is not supported in scripture at all. IMHO this is taking great latitude with the scriptures.

You said...........
ISV "Seth also fathered a son, whom he named Enosh. At that time, profaning the name of the Lord began."

The point being made was that with SETH men began to call on the name of the Lord!!!

New International Version.......
"Seth also had a son, and he named him Enosh. At that time people began to call on the name of the LORD".

New Living Translation
"When Seth grew up, he had a son and named him Enosh. At that time people first began to worship the LORD by name."

English Standard Version
To Seth also a son was born, and he called his name Enosh. At that time people began to call upon the name of the LORD.

New American Standard Bible
To Seth, to him also a son was born; and he called his name Enosh. Then men began to call upon the name of the LORD.

King James Bible
And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the LORD.

Christian Standard Bible
A son was born to Seth also, and he named him Enosh. At that time people began to call on the name of the LORD.

Contemporary English Version
Later, Seth had a son and named him Enosh. About this time people started worshiping the LORD.

Good News Translation
Seth had a son whom he named Enosh. It was then that people began using the LORD's holy name in worship.

Major1 · Mar 6, 2018

Postvieww said:
Not me. I have no problem being challenged. I have got my feathers ruffled when talked down to, but I expect to be challenged.

I agree with that also.

Major1 · Mar 6, 2018

Postvieww said:
Sorry my friend the context of words matter and you used this passage out of context to support your theory.

NOPE!

Actually I have no theory at all.

Major1 · Mar 6, 2018

Postvieww said:
And I thought it was you who was coming around. Should have known better.

Yes you should have. I can not "come around" to your thinking as it would not be Biblical to do so.

Major1 · Mar 6, 2018

Postvieww said:
Major,Major, Major my friend it is you who made the link that both “sons and daughters of men” refer to the presumed wicked line of Cain. I was merely responding to your false assertion.

You said that I said.........
2). On the other hand, the sons and daughters of men are those who are the children of Cain.

What the old Major said was.........in #784
2. Genesis 4:26......
"And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the LORD."

At this point in time there was 2 lines of humans. The line of Seth and the Line of Cain.
Seth = the Saved.
Cain = the Lost.

Then you said that my comment of TWO kinds of people, the Lost and the Saved was not Biblical.

YES IT IS!

John 12:46-48..........
“I have come as a light into the world, that whoever believes in Me should not abide in darkness. And if anyone hears My words and does not believe, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world but to save the world. He who rejects Me, and does not receive My words, has that which judges him – the word that I have spoken will judge him in the last day.”

John 3:18..........
“He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God."

Not only does the Bible teach us that there are 2 kinds of people, even Bob Dylan knew that also as he said......
"It don't matter how much money you got, there are only TWO KINDS OF PEOPLE, the lost and that saved"!

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

Believer

Believer

Believer

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Believer

Believer

Believer

Believer

Believer

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads