• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.
  4. There have been some changes in the Life Stages section involving the following forums: Roaring 20s, Terrific Thirties, Fabulous Forties, and Golden Eagles. They are changed to Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, and Golden Eagles will have a slight change.
  5. CF Staff, Angels and Ambassadors; ask that you join us in praying for the world in this difficult time, asking our Holy Father to stop the spread of the virus, and for healing of all affected.
  6. We are no longer allowing posts or threads that deny the existence of Covid-19. Members have lost loved ones to this virus and are grieving. As a Christian site, we do not need to add to the pain of the loss by allowing posts that deny the existence of the virus that killed their loved one. Future post denying the Covid-19 existence, calling it a hoax, will be addressed via the warning system.

Giants?...Sons of God?

Discussion in 'Non-denominational' started by TheBear, Jan 19, 2002.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Christopher

    Christopher Junior Member

    hey guys,

    I'm new here, but would like to offer some views and hopefully quick explanations,etc.

    There is only one possibility scripturally....if rightly divided.... the sons of God /the daughters of men...refers to the lineage of seth and the lineage of Cain inter-marrying.

    1st of all- demons are disembodied angels, so they cannot have intercourse with humans. @nd if they could satan could, and he would not have stopped post flood! God is sovereign... and he wasn't taken by surpirse and then needed to implement some plan to stop angels from mixibng with humans...neither were there 'elect' angels who fell for women,etc.
    as for the scripture in Jude that was used to support this idea...verse 7 in context is not comparing the sins of the sodomites with angels...it is stating that there were other cities around sodom and gomorrah ( perhaps much like our suburbs ) that were involved in the sins of theses evidently greater and influenicing cities,nothing more. Then too, Jesus said that angels ( which would apply to fallen agenls - satan and the demons included) neither marry nor are given in marriage, which means they don't have sexual relations! It is not a part of their nature or existence...Christ created them so I figure he knows what they can and cannot do,don't you?

    besides that, such notions as there being angelic/human offspring, demonic-man offspring, or even other humanoids other than those from adam and eve mixing together...destroys the most basic, and foundational doctrines of all of scripture, one that comes into play in the 1st few chapters of Genesis... depravity. The bible declares emphatically that all [mankind] is dead [depraved] in Adam.... it also declares that eve is the mother of all living .... so then everyone , evryman that has evr been born comes from Adam and eve...the only possibility then to stay true to the word of God is that seth and cain's children intermarried...else they are not all of Adam . The only exception is Jesus Christ born of woman...but not the seed of Adam, thus not depraved, he is the Son of God.

    then if you consider the self stated purpose for the book of genesis " these are the genrations of Adam"... that is this is a record of the human race, it's depravity, that genealogy that would be narrowed down to the lineage of Messiah, the seed of the woman, who would bruise the serpents head...starting to make sense yet =).... then there is no question what is implied..from the genreal context to the specific passages.... the son's of God and the daughter's of men is metaphorical language for the two opposing lineages. The line of seth began again to call upon the name of the Lord = son's of God. the line of cain began to increase in more and more wickedness, thus as they intermarried the pure lineage began to be corruptted and wickedness overan the earth, but God gave favour to Noah! and the lineage of Christ from seth was preserved. a feat which would happen at least two other times throughout the OT..before the birth of Messiah.

    hope that helps

  2. SonWorshipper

    SonWorshipper Old Timer

    Psalms 22.3 I have had my Dakes Bible for over 15 years now it is my favorite of all the dozens of Bibles I have. I believe that the man was truly inspired. I still haven't read everything that is in there yet. Mine is not the large print version its the large note, I don't think I could handle the one you have!! :D Mine did however cost $79.95 over 15 yrs ago, I know this because I still have the box, I keep my tracts in it. Anyway I promised you a story about how I came by mine.

    It was when my husband and I had first gotten married and didn't have too much money, I was working two part time jobs, and when I went to visit our local Bible book store one day they had a BIG display for this Bible, they showed a huge reproduction of one of the pages on cardboard about 3' by 2' hanging from the ceiling. I don't remember which page they displayed but I read every word and said WOW. I knew right then and there I had to have it! :eek:

    The only thing stopping me was the price, (mine is leather bound also and measures 8 1/2" by 11" and is the Large note edition and Fifth Printing - June 1987 so I think that it was fresh off the presses when I got it because it was like July 87' ). Well I bought my tracts and went home saddened that I couldn't afford this and wondered how long it would take me to save for it. Well the Lord knows that I am not a selfish person in fact that's why I can never save any money, because I am always getting things for others and donating to charities etc. So I guess he knew that it was way too much for me to save , but Hey he already knew I would want this Bible before I even saw it so he planned ahead! ;)

    The next day I was doing some laundry and still feeling bad because I really wanted that Bible and couldn't wait to start reading it but couldnt' figure out how I could afford it. So anyway when the cycle of the wash was done I started to pull out the clothes and put them into the dryer. After a couple of handfulls I pulled out some more clothes and there were freshly washed dollar bills on top!
    I continued to empty the washer and found more! I forget exactly how much I found there but it was a good start. This gave me an idea!! Or I should say God planted the idea. I started going thru my husbands shirt pockets, and pants , all of our winter coats, ( this was summer time) and all my old purses and anywhere else I could think of. I know this sounds awesome but after my "Treasure hunt" was done I had found exactly the amount for the Bible! I was stunned and I thanked the Lord and I knew right then and there that he had a reason for me to get it. I shared this story with my husband when he came home that night and he couldn't believe it either. We went right down to the bookstore and got the Bible!

    I don't think that God would have lead me to this bible and then helped show me how to pay for it if it wasn't a true interpretation and understanding of his word. Imagine 43 years of studying the word and prayer to bring this about! That would be all my life!
    Our God is an awesome GOD!!!!!Amen

    So I guess you understand that Noah's flood was the second flood?

    And Christopher and Apologist?:
    If the sons of God are not fallen angels, then you are saying that the reason for Noahs flood was just because everyone was so bad? Well has everyone been good since then? :confused:

    How about when the Lord had Moses lead all Israel to the promised land. When Joshua went in God told him that with some of the inhabitants they were to them KILL them ALL? Does this sound like a Loving God? No, but if you understand that he had no choice because they were bodily corrupted then the understanding is clear and it doesnt make God a monster.

    And do you believe that Giants were the product of a man and a woman? You referred to this verse:

    Matthew 22 : 30 - 38 (KJV)

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

    Notice that this states "AS THE ANGELS OF GOD IN HEAVEN.

    The sons of God were the fallen angels and they are not in Heaven, They left their first estate.

    God is referred to as a He& Him so if you think that he is only a spiritual being and without gender then how did Jesus come about?

    The angels already have their immortality, they were created into it, we have yet to put on our immortality but when we do, we will not marry in heaven because we don't need to to keep the species going but that doesnt mean that I will cease to be a female I will just cease to have a corruptable flesh body and will have a spiritual body that will never die, but I will still be a female. Ostriches have feathers so how come they don't fly?

    I really think that if you are able to acquire a Dakes Annotated Bible you will see and understand much more. He cross references so many more sciptures then any other Bible: ONE HALF MILLION!

    I will pray for your understanding.
  3. psalms 22.3

    psalms 22.3 Member

    this is long, but please read it.
    the fact that giants ONLY come from a union of sons OF GOD, and daughters OF MEN, proves that their fathers were not men of ordinary adamite stock. no such montrosities have been, nor can be, produced from the union of an ordinary man and woman, regardless of how righteous the father is, or how wicked the mother is. many converted men who are sons of god in the sense of adoption have married uncoverted woman and no offspring the size of bible giants has ever resulted from these unions. if, as some teach, giants were born of such unions, both BEFORE and AFTER the flood, then why do not such marraiges produce that kind of offspring today? why did this happen in everycase then, and in no case now?

    gods law of reproduction from the beggining has been EVERYTHING AFTER ITS OWN KIND.
    it was not possible then that giants could be produced from men and women of ordinary size. it took a supernatural element, the purpose and power of satan and his angels to make human offspring of such extra size. after giants came into being, they then produced others of like size, instead of ordinary size men.

    not only is it unscriptural but unhistorical to teach that giants came from union of ordinary men and women. the great question has been "where did giants get their start?" gen 6.4 makes it clear, from the union of sons of god, and daughters of men.
    if the sons of god were ordinary men in the same sense that the daughters of women where ordinary women
    1. that ungodly women have the power to produce such monsters when married to godly men.
    2. that godly men have the power to produce giants when married to ungodly women.
    3. that a mixture of godliness and wickedness produces giants.
    4. that extreme wickedness of either part of the parent will produce giants.
    all 4 conclusions are wrong however, as proved everyday by the offspring of wicked and godly parents. thus the theory of giants coming from seths sons, and cains daughters is disproved.

    the sons of seth could not have been the sons of god for the following 7 reasons.
    1. there were no men godly enough to be saved in the antediluvian age (from the time of recreation in gen.1.2 to the flood) except ABLE, ENOCH, and NOAH, as far as scripture records are concerned. shall we conclude that these 3 men where the sons of god that married the daughters of cain and produced giants in the earth in those days before the flood? we have no record of any marraige of or offspring of Abel before he was murdered. regarding Enoch, are we to believe that methuselah and his other children where giants? are we to believe that noahs 3 sons Shem, Ham, and Japeth-were giants? if so, where is the authority for this? had this been true, there would have been nothing on the earth after the flood but giants. for by noahs children the whole earth was replenished. gen. 10. that would cause another unsolved mystery--how giants became ordinary sized men.

    2. the TIME of the marriages of the sons disproves the theory that they were the sons of seth. the marriages of seths son, could not have taken place during the first 325 years. for he only had one son of marriageable age up to that time (gen. 5.1-8), and he (Enos) was not godly. to say that there were no such marriages before enos contradicts gen. 6.1-2. which says that the sons of god married the daughters of men when they began to be born. shall we conclude the daughters were not married in the first 325 years? if so, where did cain, seth, and others get their wives?
    furthermore, such marriages between godly sons and ungodly daughters could not have been in the last 600 years before the flood. becuase noah was the only son of god by righteouseness at this time. (gen. 6.8-9, 7.1, 2 pet 2.4-5)
    his sons were preserved in the ark becuase of being pure adamite stock, not rightouseness. so the marraiges of seths rightouse sons had to be in the 731 years between the first 325 years and the last 600 years of the antediluvian age.
    whereas sons of god(angels) actually married daughters of women throughout the 1,656 years of that age.
    it is clear that this happened in gen.6.1-2 this happened "when man began to multiply on the face of the earth". the entire length of the age, not just the amount of time limited to when the sons of seth could have married.

    3. gen. 6.4 teaches that the giants where on the earth in THOSE DAYS, (before the flood) and also AFTER THAT. (after the days before the flood) as a result of the sons of god marrying the daughters of men. if, as is taught, the sons of god, where the sons of seth, we CAN acount for them AFTER THAT (after the flood) since the blood line ran through noah. but if the daughters of men are the daughters of cain the story is diffrent. cains line perished in the flood, which means there were no daughters of cain for the sons of seth (in naohs blood line) to marry after the flood.

    4. the bible gives no reason for us to believe that the statement "the sons of god saw the daughters of cain that they were fair" should be limited to cains daughters. other families had daughters too, thousands of families. which make up the many branches of the race before and after the flood. these where daughters of men too. in the 1,656 years before the flood, (which is the period in which seth and cain lived) there must have been 150,000,000 to 500,000,000 people there. it is unbelievable that so many as half of these were godly and half ungodly, and we know that they were not limited to 2 lines-the line of seth, and the line of cain. regarding seths daughters, we have reason to believe that they were just as FAIR as the daughters of cain.beautiful enough to attract husbands for themselves. the line of seth alone survived the flood, so we know this is true.
    gen.6.1-2 cannot be said to refer only to daughters of cain. the term "daughters of men" cannot be limited to refer only to the daughters of cain.

    5. the very expressions SONS OF GOD and DAUGHTERS OF MEN
    indicate 2 diffrent kinds. one- the product of god, the other the product of man. seth, was not god, so why call the sons of god the sons of seth? these were not adopted into gods family as we are under the new covenant.

    6. it is a matter of record, that seths children were as ungodly as cains. the first born of seth even started idolatry, as proved in the above notes. gen. 4.26

    7. with the exception of noah and his family ALL FLESH had CORRUPTED HIS WAY upon the earth before the flood. gen. 6.12.
    which means the entire race except noahs family had become a mixture of fallen angels and men, or giants. only noah and his family had preserved the pedigree pure from adam; this is really why they were saved in the ark. they were the only ones capable of giving the race a clean new start after the flood.
    it is said of noah that was a just man and PERFECT in his generations gen. 6.9. the heb. for PERFECT is TAMIYM which means WITHOUT BLEMISH. the technical word for bodily perfection, not moral pefection. hence it is used of sacrificial animals of the old testiment which had to be pure stock, and without blemish (ex 12.5, 29.1, lev. 1.3) without spot (num 19.2, 28.3-11) and undefiled (ps 119.1)
    used of noah, this word means that he and his sons were the only pure adamites left, and for such purity they (regardless of the sons position of personal holiness)were all preserved in the

    so, the sons of god, cannot refer to the sons of seth, and the daughters of men cannot refer only to the daughters of cain.
  4. SonWorshipper

    SonWorshipper Old Timer

    AMEN, Brother Psalms 22.3

    Please all take the time to read with an open heart. If you are not sure then PLEASE ask the Lord to guide you before you read.

    Psalms did you read my post, we must have been posting at the same time! :cool:

    Great minds think alike? No Minds that follow the Great MInd will believe alike!! :D
  5. psalms 22.3

    psalms 22.3 Member

    yes! noahs flood was second, and adam was not the first person on this earth! haha
    but im sure ill be called a heretic for saying that since most people believe adam and eve were the first people ever, and that gen 1.2 is the orgininal creation, when it was actually a REcreation after god wiped out the PREadamic race and the universe as it was that existed before adam becuase they aided satan in attempting to overthrow god.
    and god told adam REplenish the earth.
    as noah REplenished the earth.

    ive had a dake bible for about 3 months, i first bought the hardback, for 40.00. and this christmas my mom bought me the large print leather bound for 80.00.

    oh, if some people think these bibles are just high priced for the rich people, go to the book store and read it. the way the bible is set up, and the thousands and thousands of notes that are in it are why it is so expensive.
    i personaly believe this is the most valuble bible in the world.
    ive never read another like it.
  6. SonWorshipper

    SonWorshipper Old Timer


    If they would just read it that way they would see that man's saying that the earth is billions of years old and the Bible says only about 6-13 thousand (13 if you count 1 day as a thousand years) doesnt mean that the Bible isn't true and that those two things don't jive.
    He said the same thing to Noah too and people understand that he was telling them to repopulate the earth after the waters went down.

    They don't realize that there is alot not said between verse one and verse two.

    1:1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

    Whole bunch of stuff here not talked about but if you want to know you will find it in other scriptures such as 2 Peter 3:5-7
    and Jeremiah 4:22-26 Jeremiah 4 : 22 - 26

    1:2 And the earth was without form and void and darkness was upon the face of the deep and the spirit of the God moved upon the face of the waters.

    They seem to skip the part where it says and the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." It was all water, the only other time I know this was the case was in Noahs flood, there was nothing on the whole earth but water.
    Also "without form and void".

    Does God create this kind of chaos and emptiness ? Not my God.

    As far as expense, I think for all this Bible contains I would have gladly paid more and the Lord would have found it for me!

    It is worth every penny.
  7. camaro540

    camaro540 Regular Member

    psalms 22.3, & sonworshipper

    I am very happy to read your posts! :) I have never
    used a Dakes before, but sounds like a very good
    peice of work. I simply chose to do it on my own, learning
    Hebrew, and greek, and referring to the KJV, and a Strongs.

    How beautiful the original manuscripts are, YHVH has told
    us all things......

    I hope this reply is okay, just wanted to say I love to see my
    brothers and sisters really digging in..... ;)

  8. Apologist

    Apologist 2 Tim. 2:24-26

    The end of your post is the answer to why you believe what you are arguing. Finis Jennings Dake! You have a Dake bible (which is not a good bible by the way) and you are following his teachings.
    I had an idea that might be the case and when you mentioned his bible it all became clear. Here is what the Christian Research Institute has to say about the Dake's bible:

    "Dake’s Annotated Reference Bible (Dake, 1961 [NT], 1963) KJV

    Dake’s is the product of 43 years of study and is one of the few study Bibles that has more words in its helps than in the Bible. Most of Finis Jennings Dake’s materials are set in two columns that appear on each page beside the two columns of biblical text. His introduction claims 500,000 cross-references, 35,000 notes and comments, 8,000 outlines, and 2,000 illustrations. Many of these materials are lists of observations from the text, but much is interpretive, with emphasis on prophecy, healing, and the miraculous.

    This work contains a great deal that is speculative and unorthodox, such as Dake’s belief in God’s "spirit body" with "bodily parts" that "goes from place to place" (pp. 96-97 [NT]), his strong teaching on racial segregation (e.g., pp. 148 [OT] and 159 [NT]), and his dogmatism on just about every subject he addresses. The Dake’s study Bible cannot be recommended to journal readers, charismatic or not."

    That is your problem. You are taking Dake's unorthodox teachings instead of what scripture clearly teaches.
    May God reveal the truth to you my friend.

    God Bless
  9. Apologist

    Apologist 2 Tim. 2:24-26

  10. camaro540

    camaro540 Regular Member

    This is exactly why I chose to study for myself.....

    Thats pretty freaky....
  11. psalms 22.3

    psalms 22.3 Member

    life and death are in the power of the tongue!
    no weapon formed agaisnt you will prosper, and EVERY TONGUE that shall rise against thee in judgement... isaiah 54.17
    the most powerful weapon on earth is your mouth!
    you can kill with it! people have had entire ministries destroyed, becuase someone lied and it killed their integrity to the people!

    i just looked up your claims on dakes bigotry.
    pages 148 O.T. and 159 N.T. right?
    your absolutely sure?
    there is nothing about segregation on either of those pages!
    NOTHING! SO SHUT YOUR MOUTH! DONT YOU EVER CLAIM SOMETHING LIKE THAT ABOUT A BROTHER IN CHRIST IF YOU DONT HAVE PROVED EVIDENCE! AND DONT DO IT IN HATE! you show me where he was racist ill agree he was wrong. i promise you. BUT UNTILL YOU HAVE THE PROOF, SHUT YOUR MOUTH YOU SERPENT THAT BITES AND CAUSES SEGREGATION! you can ruin a man, by simply repeating a lie, even if you did not know.

    AGAIN, show me where he was racist, and ill say im sorry, and admit he is wrong. and that i was wrong.

    you say dakes dogmatic? haha. grins.
    man thats funny. (get it?)

    say what you want, your not the first.
    it will take more than your claims to change me.

    hey, the devil is the liar.
    when i start my own ministry, people will say "your wrong, your a heretic, you dont know scripture!" but does that mean im wrong?
    by no means.
    so your claims dont mean much to me.
    why dont you show me why hes wrong instead of talking about him?
    jesus was criticised, yet he was never wrong, so this proves that simply because im called crasy in no way means im wrong.

    though i am not saying that you saying im wrong proves im right, but im simply saying you dont worry me.

    hey, prove me wrong and ill shut up.
    if you cant prove me wrong, if you fail to change me.
    still respect me. i respect you.
    ive not once said what youve said about me.
    whatever happened to love?
    the greatest of all gifts?
    we may never agree, but thats ok, and we need love, its the first priority, it makes up for things like this.

    lets take a lesson from the sinners. there sometimes wiser than the church.
    they accept homosexuals and love them even though they are diffrent.
    i dont agree with homosexuality, but we need that same love.

    everyone hear this
    matthew 9.10
    ...as jesus sat at meat in the house, behold, many publicans and sinners came and sat down with him and his disciples.

    something we sometimes miss about this is that, jesus didnt go eat with the sinners. he didnt.
    they came to him!
    jesus was so full of love and acceptance that sinners didnt fell the least bit uncomfortable around him! and they flocked to him!

    we cant be so close minded. if we are diffrent, so what?
    these men where sinners, they certainly were wrong, yet jesus composed himself in such a way that sinners did not feel the least bit worried about being condemned by him!
    so why do we fuss and fight so much?
    no wonder sinners dont like church, we kill each other for being diffrent!
    they are afraid to come to you, becuase they think youll attack them the same way!
    so what if im diffrent, i love god, i love you, im covered in the blood just like you! well both see god one day!
    forget this petty fussing that makes us look like fools to the world! who really cares whether or not god is invisible.
    i dont believe he is, but it is no reason to fuss.

    only when weve all come to together, and the parts work in unison can the machine the function properly. well never reach our full potential and purpose fussing.
  12. Apologist

    Apologist 2 Tim. 2:24-26

    "i just looked up your claims on dakes bigotry.
    pages 148 O.T. and 159 N.T. right?
    your absolutely sure?"

    Read the web site again. The author said: "This quote from Dake’s Bible is the very first New Testament note in the edition that I have owned since the early seventies. The edition I am quoting from is the sixth printing, December 1971."

    I said nothing about bigotry, I am pointing out his false teachings about the nature of God. Your reaction is perfectly in line with what the author of that article said when he said: "Many years ago, I became leery of the Dake’s Bible, but never really understood why. The only thing I could identify was that those who became strong in their study of Dake also became arrogant and unteachable. If Dake said it, then it really did not matter what anybody else said or what the general difference was in other Scriptures." I have shown you the truth from God's word, not the Dake bible. My stand is not against the man Dake or you, it is against the heretical teachings that he and others like him have perpetuated. Why don't you consider what is said at the web site I posted instead of getting so defensive. You are young (I believe you said you were 19), and impressionable, but don't let people like Dake tell you what God's word says. I have been a Christian for 19 years now (I'm 40), and have studied the bible quite extensively on many subjects, and when a teacher I admire said something that didn't sound right I went to the word of God and found the answers. Do the same my friend and you will grow more and more each day. I suggest you go to your Christian book store and get a copy of A.W Tozer's, "The Knowledge Of The Holy" and learn from a man of God who really knew about God's character.
    I have said all I can to help convince you of these wrong teachings so I will leave it up to the Holy Spirit to do the changing, I can do nothing myself.

    God Bless
  13. psalms 22.3

    psalms 22.3 Member

    i never went to the site. i tried and it wouldnt work.
    you may have pasted the wrong words.

    i have yet to see he is false, only your claims.
    i am not arrogant, i do not take dakes word as complete dogmatic teaching. i dont believe something simply becuase he said it.
    you havent shown me anything!
    seriuosly you havent! dude?
    what have you shown me?
    only that you think the word is a theophany, i agree some of it is figurative, but i do not agree it all is, or the things you say are figurative. you havent proven anything.
    your the one acting like i should believe your everyword.
    not dake.

    oh ok, blame it on my youth. whatever dude. jeremiah chapter one taught me to forget people that look down on my youth!
    my age means nothing.
    how much youve studied really doesnt mean anything to me. so did the pharisees.

    i actually like a.w. tozer. but i rarely find a man i agree 100% with.
    he knows god? are you sure its not simply that, hes like you?

    you posted scripture?
    ok, lets look at the amounts of scripture posted, i think mine far outways yours. doesnt that mean anything?

    i was offended becuase you posted something that was not the truth, i looked it up, and it wasnt there. so, figure out why im offended for yourself. dont you get it?
  14. psalms 22.3

    psalms 22.3 Member

    ok, i went to the site.
    did the author of the site prove dake was wrong?
    yet claimed he didnt know the truth.
    dake is diffrent than him, thats all he proved.
    though he did not give evidence to prove he was wrong.
    only said that dake is blind.

    actually im pentecostal, or charismatic what a coincodence.
    actually copeland and hinn and hagin are some of my faveorite preachers.
    i hate it when this happens. :(

    though i dont know about that whole scandal thing.
    and lots of things have been said about benny hinn.
    lets not go there, please.
    people do mess up, even the greatest preachers make mistakes.
    though i do agree that we must strive for perfection. and be held accountable for our wrongs.
    dake has said things, that i personally dont see how he got them.
    i do not say the dake bible cannot be wrong. if hes wrong hes wrong.
    im a follower of god, not dake, but im yet to see why dake cant be trusted.

    dake may have messed up sometimes, doesnt mean he was wrong, but that he was human.
    and im not talking about his teaching.
    i find his teaching to be the most down to earth teaching that ive ever read.

    even if dake is wrong about somethings, he may be. i doubt any bible preacher fully understands all things.
    his good, far outways his bad.
  15. Christopher

    Christopher Junior Member

    1st of all, I have a Dake-Bible. It is great... but it is not infallable . the scripture is, the commentary is not. It's the same with James Strong,Matthew Henry,John Wesly,John Calvin, Spurgeon, Tomlinson, Graham, Jakes,pastors,ministers,etc. The authors of scripture wrote under a unique inspiration to reveal to us the written word of God, as we have it. We can under the inspiration of the Spirit, interpret truth from that scripture which is infallable, but as men our own ideas are fallable, and not nesecaasrily inspired,even if we whole heartedly believ in them. The question here should not be if Jakes is write...but if the scr5ipture says what he interprets or something else....let's returen the thread ti it's intent. If jakes has something to offer, then state it, but if someone diagrees or can prove otherwise then let them, but lets walk by the same rule, and let's mind the same things, and lets be perfectly joined togethr in the same mind, so that we arrive at the same judgemnt and with one mind and one mouth glorify God.


    1. If the term sons of God only applies to fallen angels/demons, then the interpretation that sons of God means angelic host ( angels in heaven ) in the book of Job, is wrong, and then there is onl;y this one passage in genesis to hng the idea that sons of God is demons on.
    Besides that the nature of the phrase doean not at all agree with the nature of devils/fallen angels..and the HolyGhost wouldn't have made such a mistake in describing them. It was he /the Spirit that inspired Moses to pen these words, after all.

    2. Relating to the God has gender idea...there is no such thing with God. God is a spirit,Jesus said. God has a nature and by nature he is authorative, a provider, strong, self existant and therfore is described in the hebrew by the maculine, which embodies these ideas. In fact there is no m,ention of a female God, there is no weaker counterpart that is nescessary for the creation of divinity,etc. There are positions in the God head of authority and submission, but by nature each person is equally divine, and sense there is no female, none are called she. Therefore in their prson and work they are referreed to in the masculine or He. as for where did Chriost come from...he came from no where he is very God of God, not very God of the person we know as the Father...he is as much divine and eternall existant as the Spirit and Father. He only became the son of God in his incarnation and as being in form a man he was born of woman and by nature God and man,thus the son of God...before that he is the Word, with God ( the Father) and is God ( divine himself, and having divine attributes in his own person ).

    Psalms 22.3,

    I'll get abck to ya shortly... Lord will'n.

  16. Christopher

    Christopher Junior Member

    Psalms 22.3,

    1. Giants is from the hebrew ( 5303 ) nephil ;it means a bully, a tyrnat, a giant. considering this in relation to their offspring/descendants being called 'men' ( not part angle-part men) of renown. That is there were evidnetly great conquerors,etc. that existed, thus they were giants,great, and could also have been physical giants...and there is no need to have them as angelic half breeds to be giants...consider Goliath and the other 4 giants of david's day.

    2. ' pure adamite stock ' is not pertinent to the lineage of messiah,seed of woman.... will adress more later in number 6. BUT. the line of seth is directly pertinant, perhaps "pure adamite-sethite stock" would be more approriate.

    3.We don't know that Noah's son's wives were not descendants of cain or the other son's not under the umbrella of Seth;'s lineage. If they married Noah's son's and called on the name of the Lord, then there wuld have been no conflict.

    4. in relation to Genesis 6:4 - "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 punctuation will not allow for your interpratation. 'in those days' is followed by a semi-colon, which means their could have been a period there. the thought could stand on it's own but the folowing thought would relate to the original. so then in those days would be the end of the thought itself to that point. the staement and also after that is not a conclusion or addition to in those days, but further explanation...it is to say that after that the two ( sons of God , daughters of men ) mated their children became renowned. It in no way implies that after the flood angelic beings mated with humans, any more than I feel it does before the flood. It just isn't there.

    5. granted there were others sons of adam - but the scripture akes no distinction or prominence of them. It classes all men under the two distinctions of sons of God and daughters of men. Evidently men either became identified with the godly lineage of seth, which by Noah's day wasn't much I admit , or they were grouped togther in the likeness of the wicked example of cain and his descendants...I do not say they were all of Cain, simply taht cain and his descendants would be prominet influences for evil to all the other families, and seths would set the godly tone.
    Messaih was to be born, and was born of Seth, not Cain ( or the others ). God preserved a direct line of descent from seth. Thus Seth's lineage/direct descent is the son's of God in relation to the parental descent (and the predestined descent of Christ throught the purpose of God) from adam- the son of God, through seth...noah..abraham....david...joseph/mary... Christ Jesus/the Son of God.. thus the lineage of seth is from the 1st adam ( the son of God ) to the 2nd adam ( the Son of God ) ..thus his lineage is referred to as the sons of God!
    Eviedentl all the other lines of descent ( which perished with the flood) were counted as the daughters of men, including the descendants of Cain.
    It would not be nesecarry to trace or stipulate the marriage os seth's daughters with other son's from different lineages...that is it would not be nessecarry to record the mixing of the Son's of men with the daughters's of God, because the lineage is carried out throught the parental ( Father's seed/descent/name) lineage.Such relations had no effect upon the direct line of descent from Adam and eve through Seth, the lineage of Messiah.

    6. Enos, the son of seth, is the opposite as you conclude , in the scripture. It is with his existence that men ( seth's lineage and those that would aline with it before the corruppting of the lineage ) bagin again to worship or call upon the name of God, as abel did before Cain. That was the purpose of seth..he was born to replace abel. The scripture implies that Enos was a worshipper of God, and not otherwise.

    7. If angels /falen or not, could reproduce with mankind then , they would have no need not to now! What about the law of Kinds? Angels are different innature or kind from man...thus the satement " what is man...though hast amde him a little lower than the angels". Christ took on him the nature of man, not angels. They wewre created different...angels are genderless, I belive..that is there are no sexes between them ( male and female ) that is how man is created...not angels. Angles are maculine thus called he, but they are not a species with complimenbting sexes...they have no need to reproduce...they have no fountain head, or lineage...they would not create such for they were not created as such.... man would.
    And as for the possession theory that soemone presented, demon possession os a matter of spirit not physiology..they demon sirit does not mate through the genes of man...it cannot, and neither can a spirit being mate/demons are dismebodied...even if they could mate, which angels by nature do not, these spirits of once holy angles could not..they are bodiless.

  17. Apologist

    Apologist 2 Tim. 2:24-26

    If you would like to continue this subject I'll start a new post with the title: "Does God have a body?", but only if we are going to look at these teachings in a rational, systematic way.
    Let me know.

    God Bless
  18. psalms 22.3

    psalms 22.3 Member

    apologist, no i really wouldnt want to.

    i never claimed dake was infallable, i thought i made that clear in my last post.
    did you read my entire post? there was much of it that you did not reply to, as the part about the time period proves your theory wrong.

    im sorry, i really dont have time to reply to all your statements today, as im tired of this anyway, since ive been debating this since it started.

    but how do you get around this?
    if the sons of god were ordinary men in the same sense that the daughters of women where ordinary women
    1. that ungodly women have the power to produce such monsters when married to godly men.
    2. that godly men have the power to produce giants when married to ungodly women.
    3. that a mixture of godliness and wickedness produces giants.
    4. that extreme wickedness of either part of the parent will produce giants.
    all 4 conclusions are wrong however, as proved everyday by the offspring of wicked and godly parents. thus the theory of giants coming from seths sons, and cains daughters is disproved.

    we see that the angels who did this can no longer do this, since they are in hell as is said by jude 6-7. and that is an example for all other angels who would want to do this.

    why are demons disembodied angels? why cant they have sex? why are they sexless? by what authority do you say these things?

    i find jude 6-7 clearly saying they did this.

    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.

    remember there were no comas in hebrew.
    how can angels not commit fornication?
  19. Hervey

    Hervey Member

    psalm 22:3

    Your reading into Jude 6 & 7 what is not there.

    God is reserving Sodom and Gomorrha for the day of judgement - EVEN as he is also, for all the divil spirits, which did not keep their first estate, which God created for man as well as the devil spirits which are now in chains.

    Devil spirits do not have the ability to have sex, but they do have the ability in a figurative sense to commit spiritual fornication, while Sodom and Gomorrha had the ability to commit literal fornication.

    The great whore in Rev. 18:3 commits spiritual fornication, not literal fornication !

    Love IN Christ - Hervey
  20. psalms 22.3

    psalms 22.3 Member

    well i can just say
    your choosing to not read what is there. what about that?
    we all have our opinions.
    oh yes, there is also such thing as spiritual fornication.
    but we humans can commit physical fornication as well, and the bible clearly shows that angles do many many things just like a man.

    how do you know angels cant have sex?

    hey, i guess were all diffrent, well probly never agree on this.

    how many angels can dance on the head on a pin?
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.