I hope you’re not including me in that because he chooses to provoke.Please, I was kind with you until about 6 messages ago when you started to go personal again with 'you just must not have as much knowledge to understand my ways/God's ways.'
That's what [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]ed me off; super high and mighty Christians downing others because of their supposed 'perceived' lack of knowledge.
I hope you’re not including me in that because he chooses to provoke.
Please, I was kind with you until about 6 messages ago when you started to go personal again with 'you just must not have as much knowledge to understand my ways/God's ways.'
That's what [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]ed me off; super high and mighty Christians downing others because of their supposed 'perceived' lack of knowledge.
Not my ways. For God's ways. For His ways are NOT our ways. His thoughts, are not how we think. Therefore... We all must have the needed knowledge. Its a must. Until then certain truths can not be properly assimilated...
Not super high and mighty. Hardly.. I did not say you were dumb. I said, you lacked the needed knowledge. That's all. I have been challenged by others that left me feeling like I did not know what I was doing. But, I continued to grow in grace and knowledge, and along the way the Lord supplied knowledge that I would have not paid attention to unless first challenged. Sometimes that takes p__sing some folks off to get their memory locked in to something God wants them to come to know.
At worst... it will motivate you to gain the needed knowledge so you can do me a favor by refuting me in a manner that will stop me from being deceived..
The sarcasm of how you sit on the throne of the council of God because you have attained said secret knowledge and now choose to *humbly* tell others what you have learned is dripping my friend ...
I don't believe you.
You are to work out your own salvation in fear and trembling. Not trampling. It does not give answers that way.
God has perfectly planned the lives of every human being that has walked this earth. But does this also include our spouses? I'm asking this question because sometimes God's "choice f ok f us can be emotionally and physically abusive, not interested in sex... the list goes on. Are these "bad" marriages ever planned by God? Before you go to say of course not! These were just "test" marriages. I wont accept that answer because God HATES divorce. He wouldn't plan for you to get divorced he would plan on the two of you to stay together if an abusive spouse was in his plans. Yes sometimes God tests us with abuse and "bad" stuff in our lives. So surely if we get divorced we failed the test right? Is this in Gods plan? Since he planned out every aspect of our lives? Why or why not?
The one who is trampling on God's word is the one who makes it say things it doesn't say ...
The Word does say that angels had sex with women.
Just Google - angels genesis 6 ...
Many a Bible student and pastors will agree with what it says. Some will resist for personal reasons.
It also says that those angels are now locked up in chains of darkness. And, that Jesus needed to make a proclamation to them when he went below the earth during the three days before the resurrection.
Is it wrong to tell you that you need knowledge? You seem to think "knowledge" is a dirty word. That its an insult to tell someone that they need to learn something in order to understand it.
I have patience. I don't take your reactionary ways personally. Its just a part of the package.
.All we are going to do is go around in circles, and the circles I have gone around you have decided not to address. such as:.
.
It does not say "angels." It says "sons of God." Whom were called sons of God in the OT? Not man... Job spoke of the sons of God being present at the foundation of the earth's creation. That the sons of God shouted with joy.
Now.. you are telling us that they were men? Deduction is what is going on. Interpretation often times will require the process of deduction. That is why I said you need more knowledge. Which offended you...
For example?
The NIV scholars interpreted "sons of God" as angels...
Job 38:6-7 New International Version (NIV)
6 On what were its footings set,
or who laid its cornerstone—
7 while the morning stars sang together
and all the angels[a] shouted for joy?
Footnotes:
a. Job 38:7 Hebrew the sons of God.
Please... go study!
Do you not read what I write to you? This will be the third time I've addressed this. I provided a link of all the Bible versions and how most of them don't use the term 'angels'.
I also said in a past message that there are 11 times in the KJV that the terms Son of God is used; I already gave you all of Job. But the remaining 8 times, 'sons of God' means godly men.
Who was called a son of God? Back then? Only angels!
For as many as are led by the Spirit of God,
these are sons of God.. " Rom 8:14
No men in Genesis could be called sons of God! For the gift of the indwelling Holy Spirit could not be given until after Jesus was glorified!
No man could be called a "son of God" until after the resurrection and ascension of Christ!!! Only angels could be called sons of God in the OT for they are led of the Spirit.
Now on the last day, the great day of the feast, Jesus stood
and cried out, saying, “If anyone is thirsty, let him come to Me
and drink. He who believes in Me, as the Scripture said, ‘From
his innermost being will flow rivers of living water.’”
But this He spoke of the Spirit, whom those who believed
in Him were to receive; for the Spirit was not yet given,
because Jesus was not yet glorified." Jn 7:37-39
There were no men being called sons of God in Genesis!!!!!!
Why? Jesus was not yet glorified!
Like I said. Knowledge! You need more knowledge! We all do!
And, there you have some more.
Will you?
Reject it? Fight it? Distort it? Or, accept it?
grace and peace.....
I really believe you are an agenda agent... For, this makes no sense at this point. You have shown that you know already way too much to not know what you should know.I'm happy to address your poor exegesis ...
After you address the 6 objections I brought up. I think that's the least you can do.
I really believe you are an agenda agent... For, this makes no sense at this point. You have shown that you know already too much to not know what you should know.
So... you can claim I can not refute you if you wish. Yet, at this juncture, I think it best just to put you on Ignore. Just like you have been willfully ignoring what the Word teaches.
Go argue with the scholars... if you have the guts to try. You are locked into an agenda. At this point you will only become an endless cycle. Never being able to come to the knowledge of the truth. 2 Timothy 3:7
You can claim I can not refute you, if you wish. I can see a bottomless pit when I see one.
Have a nice Day.
I wouldn't accept the teachings of David Daniels, nor would his statements about a text being tampered with be authoritative since he is a kjoa who believes that all the modern versions have been tampered with.Peterjames0510 said:#1) Only ONE Critical Text manuscripts use the term 'angel' and at that, David Daniels showed that the one text was tampered.
Here you show yourself to also be kjvoa.Peterjames0510 said:The rest of the manuscripts (including manuscripts I really don't believe are God's word)
I have found three verses from the kjv Bible that indicate that "the sons of God" are speaking of angels.Peterjames0510 said:..do not go so far as you do to say angel. Only ONE document hints that the Sons of God are angels
I have given three verses that use the phrase "sons of God" in the kjv.Peterjames0510 said:#2) ..actually - the majority of modern translations do not use that word.
The translators did their job. The words "sons of God" are different words in Hebrew {ben elohim} than the word in Hebrew for "angel(s)" {malak}.Peterjames0510 said:you can see that if the English translators thought it was an angel, they did not clear it up in their translation.
On the contrary, it's manhandling Genesis 6 to claim that there was no angelic/demonic procreation.Peterjames0510 said:#3) It is manhandling Genesis 6 to claim it is angel procreation,
Peterjames0510 said:..especially in light of what we already said Jesus said about angels - "For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels of God in heaven." Matthew 22:30.
Jesus mentioned only those angels who have remained obedient to God when speaking of humans who've remained obedient to God.Peterjames0510 said:..you'd have to say there is free love in heaven if you absolutely want to insist there is sexuality among angels.
Do you?.. Do you really?Peterjames0510 said:I care about the TRUTH and representing God's truth accurately.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?