When is this referring to?

[Davy]

Where in the Bible does it say all that?

Where does it say what?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Where does it say what?

Where in the Bible does it say, "... But especially, Satan caused it to try and prevent Christ's birth down the road, trying to taint the bloodline from Noah to Christ"?

I'm just wondering. I don't remember having ever read Paul or the other N.T. writers saying as such. I'd be interested to find it and read it.

 

[Davy]

You don't think perspectives, terms, and understanding might have been different thousands of years ago? What would an Ancient Hebrew call an airplane?

I'm not going to get into crazy debates with you. Back off.

 

[Davy]

Where in the Bible does it say, "... But especially, Satan caused it to try and prevent Christ's birth down the road, trying to taint the bloodline from Noah to Christ"?

That should be obvious, if you've read Genesis 6, and then studied the rest of your Bible thereafter. See Genesis 12; Genesis 20; Genesis 26; even down to Herod looking for baby Jesus to slay. When God had to step in turn things around, intervene, to protect the bloodline of Christ down even to after His birth, you should have seen that as attempts by Satan to prevent Christ's Ministry.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

That should be obvious, if you've read Genesis 6, and then studied the rest of your Bible thereafter. See Genesis 12; Genesis 20; Genesis 26; even down to Herod looking for baby Jesus to slay. When God had to step in turn things around, intervene, to protect the bloodline of Christ down even to after His birth, you should have seen that as attempts by Satan to prevent Christ's Ministry.

... excuse me, but I'm not up to speed on what the Scriptures say about "tainting the bloodline of Jesus."

Do you know of any authors or pastors who support or explicitly teach this idea?

 

[Davy]

... excuse me, but I'm not up to speed on what the Scriptures say about "tainting the bloodline of Jesus."

Do you know of any authors or pastors who support or explicitly teach this idea?

Wait a minute. Are you asking for proof by 'majority view' of what God's Word reveals? How have you even gotten pass the first chapter in God's Word with that kind of thinking? Pray to God for understanding in His Word.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Wait a minute. Are you asking for proof by 'majority view' of what God's Word reveals? How have you even gotten pass the first chapter in God's Word with that kind of thinking? Pray to God for understanding in His Word.

I'm asking for support of your view. Surely, if what you say is true, then you'e not the only human being in history to teach what you've said, right? So then, it should be no trouble for you to support your statements, especially since your biblical references are so unspecific and ambiguous.

 

[Davy]

I'm asking for support of your view. Surely, if what you say is true, then you'e not the only human being in history to teach what you've said, right? So then, it should be no trouble for you to support your statements, especially since your biblical references are so unspecific and ambiguous.

Read your Bible for yourself is all I can say. The first attempt Satan did with attacking the Seed that Christ would be born through was when Cain murdered his brother Abel. So if you can't understand how Satan early on tried to destroy the Seed of the Woman that Jesus would be born through, via all the Bible examples, then I can't help you.

1 John 3:12
12 Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his brother's righteous.
KJV

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Read your Bible for yourself is all I can say. The first attempt Satan did with attacking the Seed that Christ would be born through was when Cain murdered his brother Abel. So if you can't understand how Satan early on tried to destroy the Seed of the Woman that Jesus would be born through, via all the Bible examples, then I can't help you.

1 John 3:12
12 Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his brother's righteous.
KJV

Alright then. Thanks, brother!

 

[Davy]

I'm asking for support of your view. Surely, if what you say is true, then you'e not the only human being in history to teach what you've said, right? So then, it should be no trouble for you to support your statements, especially since your biblical references are so unspecific and ambiguous.

Matt 16:21-23
21 From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto His disciples, how that He must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.

22 Then Peter took Him, and began to rebuke Him, saying, "Be it far from Thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee."

23 But He turned, and said unto Peter, "Get thee behind Me, Satan: thou art an offence unto Me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men."
KJV

How's that for ambiguity? Do you think Lord Jesus was saying Peter was Satan there?

Why would Satan want to prevent Christ's crucifixion? Obviously because it would seal Satan's judgment and destruction. Christ's death and resurrection meant Victory over Satan in the ultimate sense.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Matt 16:21-23
21 From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto His disciples, how that He must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.

22 Then Peter took Him, and began to rebuke Him, saying, "Be it far from Thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee."

23 But He turned, and said unto Peter, "Get thee behind Me, Satan: thou art an offence unto Me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men."
KJV

How's that for ambiguity? Do you think Lord Jesus was saying Peter was Satan there?

It is ambiguous. We can't really tell from this text if this imperative statement from Jesus implies a smack on Peter's hand for being rebellious (which I don't think it is), or if it's meant to imply that Peter is unknowingly but contesting Jesus' concerns and plans out of empathy, or if Satan was ipso facto influencing Peter. I tend to think it's one of the first two interpreations rather than the third. But who knows for sure?

Why would Satan want to prevent Christ's crucifixion? Obviously because it would seal Satan's judgment and destruction. Christ's death and resurrection meant Victory over Satan in the ultimate sense.

Sure. I understand that. But tainting the "bloodline" of Jesus isn't a cogent concept since the bloodline was already tainted. No, I think what we should be saying is that Satan, as far as he has understood God's plans with His Messiah, wanted to prevent it if possible, but not through some kind of physical taint of a Messianic "bloodline."

 

[Thomas White]

I'm not going to get into crazy debates with you. Back off.

You accused me of not believing the Word of God. You began the debate.

 

[Jaxxi]

I don't think so. I think God has made sure the giant hybrids have all been purged out. The Pawnee Indians said they were three times the size of an ordinary man. That would be something like 3 x 6 = 18 feet tall. I know there's been a few really tall men around 10 feet recorded, but not 18 feet tall.

Well according to the Book of Islam, Adam was 3 cubits tall which is 90 ft.

 

[Jaxxi]

I wouldn't go so far as to say the giant hybrids could enter the heavenly realm, but that they did have some supernatural abilities, which is how the various mythologies of the ancients came from (like the Titans, etc.). The ancients worshiped them as gods, when they weren't really gods. It caused confusion away from God's Plan for man. But especially, Satan caused it to try and prevent Christ's birth down the road, trying to taint the bloodline from Noah to Christ.

Good point. His jealousy towards Christ is so monumental. Do you think he knows in the end he is destroyed? I mean he is still trying so hard to win, but he knows the Bible. Maybe he doesn't know Revelation?

 

[Davy]

It is ambiguous. We can't really tell from this text if this imperative statement from Jesus implies a smack on Peter's hand for being rebellious (which I don't think it is), or if it's meant to imply that Peter is unknowingly but contesting Jesus' concerns and plans out of empathy, or if Satan was ipso facto influencing Peter. I tend to think it's one of the first two interpreations rather than the third. But who knows for sure?

Sure. I understand that. But tainting the "bloodline" of Jesus isn't a cogent concept since the bloodline was already tainted. No, I think what we should be saying is that Satan, as far as he has understood God's plans with His Messiah, wanted to prevent it if possible, but not through some kind of physical taint of a Messianic "bloodline."

It is the third interpretation, Satan was... influencing Peter's thoughts (temporarily). The main purpose for Christ's 1st coming was to die on the cross, becoming the one Perfect sacrifice for sin for one and all time.

And Genesis 3:15 about the emnity between Satan's seed and the Seed of the Woman (Christ's bloodline) certainly is not ambiguous.

 

[Davy]

You accused me of not believing the Word of God. You began the debate.

I didn't accuse YOU of anything!

What I said was those who deny what God's Word says about the events in Genesis 6 about the giant hybrid race and the many other Scriptures about their great stature and features shows they were real and not some fairy tale, and those who deny those Scriptures as written likely deny many other Truths written in God's Word. But I did not directly point the finger at anyone.

 

[Davy]

Well according to the Book of Islam, Adam was 3 cubits tall which is 90 ft.

The common computation as to the length of the cubit makes it 20.24 inches for the ordinary cubit, and 21.888 inches for the sacred one.

So 1 cubit = roughly 20 inches. And 3 cubits = 60 inches, which is about 5 feet.

 

[Davy]

Good point. His jealousy towards Christ is so monumental. Do you think he knows in the end he is destroyed? I mean he is still trying so hard to win, but he knows the Bible. Maybe he doesn't know Revelation?

In Isaiah there are hints about Satan's thoughts, with God using "the Assyrian" as a type for Satan. See especially Isaiah 10.

 

[Thomas White]

I didn't accuse YOU of anything!

What I said was those who deny what God's Word says about the events in Genesis 6 about the giant hybrid race and the many other Scriptures about their great stature and features shows they were real and not some fairy tale, and those who deny those Scriptures as written likely deny many other Truths written in God's Word. But I did not directly point the finger at anyone.

I do no believe the giants in Genesis were actual giants, so yes, you did accuse me of denying God's Word.

 

[Davy]

For those interested:

Gen 6:9
9 These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.
KJV

OT:8549
tamiym (taw-meem'); from OT:8552; entire (literally, figuratively or morally); also (as noun) integrity, truth:

KJV - without blemish, complete, full, perfect, sincerely (-ity), sound, without spot, undefiled, upright (-ly), whole.
(Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright © 1994, 2003, 2006, 2010 Biblesoft, Inc. and International Bible Translators, Inc.)

That's the same Hebrew word used for the required flesh purity of a sacrificial animal per the old covenant. So the matter in Genesis 6 is definitely... about bloodline purity. Only Noah and his family had not mixed their lineages with those hybrids.


Isaiah 26:14 with the KJV word "deceased", it is actually in the Hebrew pointing to the name Rephaim used for a branch of the hybrid giant race in the Old Testament. The Message in that Isaiah verse is that the Rephaim are "deceased, they shall not rise", meaning they have no part in the resurrection.

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

Now someone with their thinking cap on, will automatically realize by the fact those will not rise, i.e., resurrect, it means those are not just some mean bullies that took over the earth in Noah's day, for even the wicked will have their own resurrection, what Jesus called the "resurrection of damnation" (John 5:28-29). But these are in a different category, since they shall not rise (resurrect). It has to mean these Rephaim were never a part of God's natural creation, further giving evidence to the event plainly written in Genesis 6 of certain angels leaving their habitation to take wives of the flesh daughters of Adam, and their offspring were literal giant-hybrids.