Giants?...Sons of God?

[TheBear]

BWSmith,

No problem. I was wondering where this thing was going, though.

As far as the Giants and Sons of God goes, you all have given me a lot of material to consider. And of course nothing can be easy, as evident in the fact that there seems to be no overriding agreement on this. LOL!!

Hey Debbie, I need that 98% agreement, now!


John

 

[Debbie]

Geez, are you out to get me or what? I still maintain that 98% of all Christians worldwide accept the BASIC doctrines of the Bible. I'm sorry Bear, but giants are not part of the basic doctrines.

 

[BWSmith]

... and neither is material inerrancy of the scriptures.

 

[TheBear]

Sorry Debbie,

I'm not 'out to get' you.
I do have a favor to ask of you, though. Can you please list for me, ALL of the 'basic doctrines' that 98% of the worldwide Christians agree upon. I would greatly appreciate it.

Thanks,

John

 

[psalms 22.3]

bwsmith
you say these are editorial mistakes?
in the old testament? your sure?
because scholars say that the new testament is 99.5% pure.
and the old testament is even closer than that to being perfect.

becuase scribes devoted their lives to copying them, they were commited to perfection on insane level!
these men knew exactly how many digits were in every sentence! the knew what the exact middle digit was! and theyd take a sentence from both sides and count towards the middle and make sure the middle digit was the correct digit. and make sure every sentence had the exact amount of digits it was supposed to have.
they had the entire thing memorised down to the exact letter!
there was absolutely no room for any error even in the smallest degree!
they didnt even try to correct a mistake.
if these people found any mistake at all, no matter what theyd burn the entire book and start over! there was no room for anything but perfection in copying the scriptures!

to say the bible we have today is not an accurant representation of the original document is an extremely strong statement, becuase of the scribes perfectionist attitudes.

the earliest translation of the "iliad" we have was written 400 years after the original. and we still take it as accurate.

the earliest translation of the of the books of the bible was written only 15 years after the original. and we have 3566 copies today.


josephus wrote about angles sleeping with women.
in jude it clearly says angles commited fornication.

adam and eve produced giants? cain and abel certainly werent giants, and were are their offspring, we are not giants.
the term "sons of god" clearly refer to angles in job.
why not here?

 

[Apologist]

Psalms 22.3 said:

"josephus wrote about angles sleeping with women.
in jude it clearly says angles commited fornication."

Josephus was a historian for Rome not a biblical writer so I wouldn't put much weight into what he says about that.

I am curious as to how you get angels commiting fornication from Jude without interjecting that into the text?

God Bless

 

[psalms 22.3]

jude verse 6-7
and THE ANGLES who kept not, their first estate but left their own habitation (that actually means bodily change, or a lowering of oneself to something thats not your nature) he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.
EVEN AS sodom and gomorrah, and the cities about them, IN LIKE MANNER (or like the angels) GIVING THEMSELVES OVER TO FORNICATION and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

it is comparing the angles and cities, they did the same things.
angels commited fornication.
it could be said that they are the same angles as those "sons of god, with the daughters of men".
but it clearly says angels can and did commit fornication.

 

[psalms 22.3]

even if he was only a ( i dont really know enough about him to say) historian, historians record history,
why cant he be credible?
are our historians wrong today? did columbus really discover america?
im sure they could be wrong, they are human, but it doesnt prove that his words can be thrown out without regard.

 

[psalms 22.3]

and it is clearly stated in gen that gods law of reproduction from the beggining was EVERTYHING AFTER HIS OWN KIND.
these giants
(like, Og of bashan, having an 18' long 8' wide bed, called a giant)
could not have came from men of ordinary stature.
only when angels produced seed could they have been so large.

the great pyramids, and other things, will never be explained until fallen angels and giants are taken into consideration.
we still cant build those things today!

 

[VeraciousMaven]

Has anyone heard this view before?

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qgensix.html

I never even thought of it that way ....



God bless!

 

[BWSmith]

ps wrote:
> you say these are editorial mistakes? in the old testament? your sure? because scholars say that the new testament is 99.5% pure. and the old testament is even closer than that to being perfect.

These aren't mistakes. They were set that way intentionally.

 

[BWSmith]

Unfortunately, I don't think too highly of CTT, either.

 

[psalms 22.3]

im sorry, i dont understand what your saying.

you said
"It was pluralized and placed in its current context to explain the Nephilim that appear in Numbers"

the scribes copied, they didnt place things, if it wasnt perfectly like the original it was burnt.
it is in the form that the holyspirit inspired it to be written. like it was originally written.

there were giants before and after the flood.
***and also afterward*** was not placed there by an editor.

there werent any editors, only copiers and translators.
you see how there are few words in italics in the old testament?

no one had to add, or move, or remove things from the bible so it would make sense, god needs no ones help.
all scripture is "inspired" by god. according to paul.
or "god breathed"
when moses and others wrote the books, they were under the influence of the holyghost, they did not make mistakes. god breathed into the making of his scripture.
it did not need editing.

 

[Debbie]

Psalms already gave Biblical proof, I believe on pg 1 of this thread that "sons of God" in the old testament is, in every instance, referring to angels. Thus, what we THINK sons of God is referring to is irrelevant. The Bible says "sons of God" is angels.The book of Ezekial proves that humans are referred to as "sons of dust". There are different types of angels & some are demons. There are different types of demons. Some demons have names. There are sex demons which still fornicate with people. They have names such as "Incubus" & "Succubus". One fornicates with males & one females. The word incubus, in itself, means one who incubates. As I said before, some people believe that demons incubated the egg of the female with demon sperm in order to demonize the seed of the "daughters of dust" so that the Messiah would be part demonic. Although Incubus & Succubus still exist today, the Messiah has already been born & risen, so incubating their seed is fruitless & would only draw attention to the fact that demons exist. Today they serve their purpose in leading sons & daughters of dust into sexual sin.

 

[BWSmith]

Hi ps22.3,

For further education on the origin of Genesis and other books of the Bible, here are some excellent online resources:

Reading the Old Testament, Barry Bandstra (Hope College)

The History of the Development of the Documentary Hypothesis (Santa Clara University)

The Law and Former Prophets (Australian Catholic University)

Old Testament Life and Literature (Gerald LaRue, U. of Southern Cal.)

 

[Debbie]

"for further education on books of the Bible" is the whole problem. The Bible itself is supposed to be the foundation of every Christian's walk with the Lord. "EDUCATION" is satan's word, not God's. The word "educate" in any form, is not in the Bible in any form, not even once.

 

[BWSmith]

"let the wise listen and add to their learning, and let the discerning get guidance" Proverbs 1:5

 

[TheBear]

Hi Debbie,

Any luck with that list yet? I look forward to reading it.

Thanks,
John

 

[Debbie]

What is it you want from me Bear John? A list of what? You dont know what the basic doctrines of the Bible are? You don't know that giants are not a basic doctrine of the Bible? You trying to intimidate me or insult me? You have a problem with me having a viewpoint?

 

[TheBear]

Hi Debbie,

All I am asking from you is a list of what you consider to be the basic doctrines that 98% of Christians, worldwide, agree on.

I'm not mad at you or anything like that. This is normal discourse in any discussion forum. It is not unusual, or out of the way, in any discussion to have someone be asked to back up their claims with the facts. This has nothing to do with your viewpoint. You stated emphaticaly and in a matter-of-fact stance, that 98% of all Christians, worldwide, agree on the basic doctrines. You even qualified it further, by making sure we were talking about mature Christians.

So, all I'm asking from you is to either back up your claim with a list of doctrines that 98% of all mature Christians agree upon, or simply admit that it's just your opinion.

John