PDA

View Full Version : Sons of God in the Old Testament (Tanakh)



beameup
June 27th, 2017, 08:54 AM
Now it came about, when men began to multiply on the face of the land, and daughters were born to them, that the sons of God [ben 'elohim] saw that the daughters of men were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose. - Genesis 6:1-2

The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God [ben 'elohim] came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown. - Genesis 6:4

jamie
June 27th, 2017, 09:07 AM
The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God [ben 'elohim] came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown. - Genesis 6:4


Who were the sons of God?

Who were the mighty men of old from God's perspective?

beameup
June 27th, 2017, 09:34 AM
Who were the sons of God?
ben elohim = sons of elohim (plural)


Who were the mighty men of old from God's perspective?
"mighty men of old" = nephilim (plural)

jamie
June 27th, 2017, 12:07 PM
The sons of God were the mighty men of old.

Here's a partial list of the sons of God:

"...the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech, the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of Mahalalel, the son of Cainan, the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God." (Luke 3:36-38)

Jesus was also a son of God through David, the son of Nathan by his mom.

beameup
June 27th, 2017, 12:49 PM
The sons of God were the mighty men of old.
The text clearly says that the "sons of God" were the FATHERS of the Nephilim
The "sons of God" TOOK wives and CHILDREN were born to them.
The Nephilim were the SONS of the sons-of-'elohim and human women and were GIANTS


Here's a partial list of the sons of God:

"...the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech, the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of Mahalalel, the son of Cainan, the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God." (Luke 3:36-38)
None of these "fathers" were 'elohim, they were human men


Jesus was also a son of God through David, the son of Nathan by his mom.
Again, Jesus was not a son of the 'elohim spoken of in Genesis 6, Jesus was the son of God.

So, we have three "father" groups mentioned here:
ben 'elohim
mankind
God

chair
June 27th, 2017, 01:44 PM
The text clearly says that the "sons of God" were the FATHERS of the Nephilim
The "sons of God" TOOK wives and CHILDREN were born to them.

No. It doesn't.

here it is in English translation, since you don't know Hebrew:

4 The Nephilim 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.

jamie
June 27th, 2017, 02:34 PM
Angels were individually created beings. They did not reproduce so there is no reason to believe they were male and female.

There is no reason to believe they had DNA without which physical reproduction cannot be accomplished.

Angels are sterile, most humans are not.

Ktoyou
June 27th, 2017, 03:01 PM
This is such a silly topic! They were decedents of Seth, not a separate race of giants, or angles.

beameup
June 27th, 2017, 07:17 PM
Angels were individually created beings. They did not reproduce so there is no reason to believe they were male and female.

There is no reason to believe they had DNA without which physical reproduction cannot be accomplished.

Angels are sterile, most humans are not.

Where is the word "Angel" in the text?
The subject is ben 'elohim

jamie
June 27th, 2017, 08:08 PM
Where is the word "Angel" in the text?
The subject is ben 'elohim


Some people maintain spirit beings made babies.

beameup
June 28th, 2017, 03:57 AM
Some people maintain spirit beings made babies.
What "spirit beings" are you referring to (add scripture please)?
Certainly "angels" and the "Angel of YHVH" ate and drank with Abraham, on their way to Sodom, and the two angels became the objects of sexual desire to the residents of Sodom.

Truster
June 28th, 2017, 05:16 AM
The sons of Elohim were of the line of Seth (the spiritual pre-evangelism) while the daughters of men were of the line of Cain.

Epoisses
June 28th, 2017, 06:52 AM
The sons of Elohim were of the line of Seth (the spiritual pre-evangelism) while the daughters of men were of the line of Cain.

I begrudgingly have to agree with this post. Evolution is slowly dying the death of absurdity so the newest lie is that angels procreated with humans to create the Nephilim or giants that roamed the earth. Then these 'angels' are turned into aliens who seeded life on earth thousands of years ago. The alien phenomena is so popular today that there are shows like 'ancient aliens', 'X-files' and 'Doctor who' that spin this theme to ad nauseam. Everything that God creates is beautiful and perfect so the belief that the universe is filled with bug-eyed aliens is demonic. The premise being that if evolution started here it must have started on other worlds as well. Well, evolution never started here so it never started on any other world either. The bug-eyed aliens are demons trying to deceive stupid humans and doing a pretty good job at it.

beameup
June 28th, 2017, 07:11 AM
The sons of Elohim were of the line of Seth (the spiritual pre-evangelism) while the daughters of men were of the line of Cain.
So, the "sons of Seth" could go up and appear before God, along with Satan?

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

jamie
June 28th, 2017, 07:55 AM
What "spirit beings" are you referring to (add scripture please)?
Certainly "angels" and the "Angel of YHVH" ate and drank with Abraham, on their way to Sodom, and the two angels became the objects of sexual desire to the residents of Sodom.


Angels are interdimensional. Humans are intradimensional.

jamie
June 28th, 2017, 08:07 AM
So, the "sons of Seth" could go up and appear before God, along with Satan?


There are spirit sons of God and there are human sons of God.

The spiritual creation is primary, the physical creation is temporary.

Angels live at the discretion of the Spirit who brought them into existence through Christ.

Truster
June 28th, 2017, 08:07 AM
I begrudgingly have to agree with this post. Evolution is slowly dying the death of absurdity so the newest lie is that angels procreated with humans to create the Nephilim or giants that roamed the earth. Then these 'angels' are turned into aliens who seeded life on earth thousands of years ago. The alien phenomena is so popular today that there are shows like 'ancient aliens', 'X-files' and 'Doctor who' that spin this theme to ad nauseam. Everything that God creates is beautiful and perfect so the belief that the universe is filled with bug-eyed aliens is demonic. The premise being that if evolution started here it must have started on other worlds as well. Well, evolution never started here so it never started on any other world either. The bug-eyed aliens are demons trying to deceive stupid humans and doing a pretty good job at it.

I shall reciprocate and agree. Not because I'm a sniveling creep, but because there is truth in what you have added.

Tambora
June 28th, 2017, 08:25 AM
This is such a silly topic! They were decedents of Seth, not a separate race of giants, or angles.Then it would be the descendants of Seth that were being wicked by marrying women they should not be marrying.

Tambora
June 28th, 2017, 08:32 AM
The sons of Elohim were of the line of Seth (the spiritual pre-evangelism) while the daughters of men were of the line of Cain.Then it would be the line of Seth that were being wicked by marrying women they should not be marrying. That doesn't sound like Godly evangelism, now does it.

Truster
June 28th, 2017, 08:38 AM
Then it would be the line of Seth that were being wicked by marrying women they should not be marrying. That doesn't sound like Godly evangelism, now does it.


That is why the deluge occurred. Haven't you ever read the Bible?

Tambora
June 28th, 2017, 09:02 AM
That is why the deluge occurred. Haven't you ever read the Bible?Then why did you call the wickedness of marrying those they should not have as "evangelism"?


The "sons of GOD" in the verse are the bad guys, doing something they should not be doing.
By trying to force the verse to say "the line of Seth" (which it does not) forces the line of Seth to be the wicked ones, not the Godly ones.
That obliterates the theory that the line of Seth was Godly while the line of Cain was wicked.

Truster
June 28th, 2017, 09:07 AM
Then why did you call the wickedness of marrying those they should not have as "evangelism"?


The "sons of GOD" in the verse are the bad guys, doing something they should not be doing.
By trying to force the verse to say "the line of Seth" (which it does not) forces the line of Seth to be the wicked ones, not the Godly ones.
That obliterates the theory that the line of Seth was Godly while the line of Cain was wicked.

You don't know the difference between evangelism and the pre-evangelism and yet you comment on it. In you presumption rules.

Tambora
June 28th, 2017, 09:15 AM
You don't know the difference between evangelism and the pre-evangelism and yet you comment on it. In you presumption rules.Then you agree that it was the "sons of GOD" that were being wicked.
Your theory has the line of Seth as the "sons of GOD" being the wicked ones.

Truster
June 28th, 2017, 09:18 AM
Then you agree that it was the "sons of GOD" that were being wicked.
Your theory has the line of Seth as the "sons of GOD" being the wicked ones.

I don't have any theories or opinions. By the Holy Spirit I have and understand the truth.

Your signature says it all. It is the only firm point you ever make.

Tambora
June 28th, 2017, 09:51 AM
I don't have any theories or opinions. You do.
You have the theory and the opinion that the "sons of GOD" in Genesis 6 is the line of Seth.
It is the sons of GOD that did wickedly in Genesis 6.
You make the line of Seth being the wicked ones, not the Godly ones.

Truster
June 28th, 2017, 10:13 AM
You do.
You have the theory and the opinion that the "sons of GOD" in Genesis 6 is the line of Seth.
It is the sons of GOD that did wickedly in Genesis 6.
You make the line of Seth being the wicked ones, not the Godly ones.

I have given you the facts, but you don't have the Holy Spirit to enlighten you as to the meaning of the facts. That is your problem, not mine. You are a pretender who is always caught out when you try and deal with even the simplest things pertaining to the kingdom.
I know you think you are being clever, but you are being really silly. Do yourself a favour and stop embarrassing yourself, my dear.

Tambora
June 28th, 2017, 10:21 AM
I have given you the facts,Scripture gives me the facts, not you.
Scripture disagrees with you.
The sons of GOD in Genesis 6 were the bad guys, not the good guys.

Truster
June 28th, 2017, 10:27 AM
Scripture gives me the facts, not you.
Scripture disagrees with you.
The sons of GOD in Genesis 6 were the bad guys, not the good guys.

A wretched, spiteful.....Your sprite is blinding you. You don't even take the time to study the scriptures so you just repeat the same old nonsense over and over.

Tambora
June 28th, 2017, 10:51 AM
A wretched, spiteful.....Your sprite is blinding you. You don't even take the time to study the scriptures so you just repeat the same old nonsense over and over.You can't refute it scripturally because you are blinded to what the scripture says; so instead, you open your eyes to worldly things like avatars and signatures and start bashing those things.

The sons of GOD in Genesis were the bad guys.

beameup
June 29th, 2017, 12:14 AM
The sons of Elohim were of the line of Seth (the spiritual pre-evangelism) while the daughters of men were of the line of Cain.
The Hebrew says that they were daughters of man (adam).
If the Holy Spirit had meant "daughters of Cain" it would have said so.

beameup
June 29th, 2017, 12:18 AM
Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD. - Job 2:1

The sons of God have direct access to God, and are associated with Satan.

jamie
June 29th, 2017, 08:06 AM
"For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God." (Romans 8:14)

beameup
June 29th, 2017, 09:26 AM
"For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God." (Romans 8:14)

You seem confused. :confused:
The title of the post is "Sons of God in the Old Testament". That would be in Hebrew.

Whereupon are the foundations of the earth fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof [of the earth];
When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? - Job 38:6-7

jamie
June 29th, 2017, 11:39 AM
You seem confused. :confused:
The title of the post is "Sons of God in the Old Testament". That would be in Hebrew.


You seem confused. Are you saying no one in the OT had God's Spirit?


But concerning the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was spoken to you by God, saying, 'I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'?

God is not the God of the dead, but of the living. (Matthew 22:31-32)


A son of God, by definition, is a person who has the Spirit of God and Christ, i.e. the holy Spirit, which was not available while Jesus was human.

1Mind1Spirit
June 29th, 2017, 04:25 PM
You seem confused. Are you saying no one in the OT had God's Spirit?


But concerning the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was spoken to you by God, saying, 'I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'?

God is not the God of the dead, but of the living. (Matthew 22:31-32)


A son of God, by definition, is a person who has the Spirit of God and Christ, i.e. the holy Spirit, which was not available while Jesus was human.

You sayin' the Holy Spirit now represents both God and Christ?

1 Peter 1:11

“Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.”

genuineoriginal
June 29th, 2017, 05:05 PM
Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD. - Job 2:1

The sons of God have direct access to God, and are associated with Satan.

John 1:12
12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
We believers have been given the power to become the sons of God and present ourselves before the LORD.
But we are associated with Christ, not Satan.

Satan came with the sons of God, but the sons of God were not associated with Satan.

genuineoriginal
June 29th, 2017, 05:07 PM
You seem confused. :confused:
The title of the post is "Sons of God in the Old Testament". That would be in Hebrew.
Do you believe that the writers of the New Testament did not know the Old Testament?
The quotes from the Old Testament in the New Testament indicate that they came from the Septuagint, a Greek text, and not from any new translation of the Hebrew.

jamie
June 29th, 2017, 06:25 PM
You sayin' the Holy Spirit now represents both God and Christ?


They are indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

God is one.

"I in them and You in Me that they may be made perfect in one" (John 17:23)

jamie
June 29th, 2017, 06:40 PM
not from any new translation of the Hebrew.


What if they came from an old translation of the Hebrew?

Tambora
June 29th, 2017, 06:42 PM
Genesis 6:4 KJV
(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.


Does everyone here in this thread hold the view that "after" means after the flood?

Tambora
June 29th, 2017, 06:47 PM
Do you believe that the writers of the New Testament did not know the Old Testament?
The quotes from the Old Testament in the New Testament indicate that they came from the Septuagint, a Greek text, and not from any new translation of the Hebrew.The Alexandrian LXX (Septuagint), which is the most complete one we have, says "angels" (Greek aggelos) in Genesis 6.

beameup
June 30th, 2017, 03:29 AM
Does everyone here in this thread hold the view that "after" means after the flood?

“There also we saw the Nephilim נְפִיל (the sons of Anak are part of the Nephilim); נְפִיל and we became like grasshoppers in our own sight, and so we were in their sight.” - Numbers 13:33

Tambora
June 30th, 2017, 07:01 AM
Genesis 6:4 KJV
(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.


Does everyone here in this thread hold the view that "after" means after the flood?

“There also we saw the Nephilim נְפִיל (the sons of Anak are part of the Nephilim); נְפִיל and we became like grasshoppers in our own sight, and so we were in their sight.” - Numbers 13:33

Here's the deal .......

That cannot be true for those that hold the view of the sons of Seth mating with the daughters of Cain, because the flood killed all of the line of Cain.

Hawkins
June 30th, 2017, 07:02 AM
I believe that "sons of God" has two meanings. First the angels, second any unknown species standing like humans but not humans.

They are called "sons of God" because ancient humans don't know what they are and thus used that term to describe them. The same term they might have used to describe the angels who appear to look like humans but not actually humans.

I think that the verse could mean that other species such as Neanderthals came for human women back and forth to have offspring. This happened before and after the flood.

beameup
June 30th, 2017, 07:42 AM
I believe that "sons of God" has two meanings. First the angels, second any unknown species standing like humans but not humans.

They are called "sons of God" because ancient humans don't know what they are and thus used that term to describe them. The same term they might have used to describe the angels who appear to look like humans but not actually humans.

Many attribute the designation "son of God" in the Old Testament, to mean that they were direct creations of God.
There are many "direct creations" of God, such as the angels, seraphim, cherubim, etc.
Adam is called the son of God in Luke 3:38.

jamie
June 30th, 2017, 07:54 AM
I think that the verse could mean that other species such as Neanderthals came for human women back and forth to have offspring. This happened before and after the flood.

That means their DNA was complementary.

This means they descended from Eve, the mother of all.

Even the Denisovans.

jamie
June 30th, 2017, 08:01 AM
Many attribute the designation "son of God" in the Old Testament, to mean that they were direct creations of God.
There are many "direct creations" of God, such as the angels, seraphim, cherubim, etc.


And many humans are sons of God by direct creation.

"Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation" (2 Corinthians 5:17)

A person with God's Spirit is in Christ.

beameup
June 30th, 2017, 08:17 AM
And many humans are sons of God by direct creation.

"Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation" (2 Corinthians 5:17)

A person with God's Spirit is in Christ.

You seem to be unable to focus on the topic.
The topic is "sons of God in the Old Testament".
Are you aware that the Old Testament was written in Hebrew?
However, these "sons of God" from Genesis 6
are referenced in the New Testament:

For if God spared not the angels that sinned,
but cast them down to Tartarus, and delivered
them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment
2 Peter 2:4

And the angels which kept not their first estate,
but left their own habitation, he hath reserved
in everlasting chains under darkness unto the
judgment of the great day. - Jude 6

jamie
June 30th, 2017, 08:30 AM
Are you aware that the Old Testament was written in Hebrew?


Paul taught from the Greek version of the Hebrew Bible.

Many people claim that he could read and speak the Hebrew language.

Besides, Moses was a Christian.

jamie
June 30th, 2017, 08:34 AM
For if God spared not the angels that sinned,
but cast them down to Tartarus, and delivered
them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment
2 Peter 2:4

And the angels which kept not their first estate,
but left their own habitation, he hath reserved
in everlasting chains under darkness unto the
judgment of the great day. - Jude 6


"Do you not know that we shall judge angels?" (1 Corinthians 6:3)

Hawkins
June 30th, 2017, 09:56 AM
Many attribute the designation "son of God" in the Old Testament, to mean that they were direct creations of God.
There are many "direct creations" of God, such as the angels, seraphim, cherubim, etc.
Adam is called the son of God in Luke 3:38.


To me, what matters is that it could possibly be an interbreeding event. As long as interbreeding exists before and after the flood, we can't tell for sure "what they are". No where says that "sons (plural) of God" must be direct creation from God. In contrary, "son of man" is often used to describe someone appear to be a human and being a human.

Hawkins
June 30th, 2017, 10:09 AM
That means their DNA was complementary.

This means they descended from Eve, the mother of all.

Even the Denisovans.

I don't think that genetic description is good enough to define them. I believe that a more precise description can only be from whether they have a human soul. If they have a soul, they are descendants of Eve and Adam, if not (say as a result of mating back and forth with both humans and other species such as the chimps) they may not be properly considered as the descendants of Eve and Adam.

By the book of Enoch, some of them could possibly be what we commonly refer to as the demons.

beameup
June 30th, 2017, 10:16 AM
To me, what matters is that it could possibly be an interbreeding event. As long as interbreeding exists before and after the flood, we can't tell for sure "what they are". No where says that "sons (plural) of God" must be direct creation from God. In contrary, "son of man" is often used to describe someone appear to be a human and being a human.

What else would they be? Are you implying that there are celestial beings that reproduce "sons". Man has the capacity to reproduce children, of course. But only one man is called the son of God, that is the original... Adam in Luke 3:38. Adam is an original creation by God.

oikētērion οἰκητήριον = a glorified body
And the angels which kept not their first estate,
but left their own habitation [oikētērion]
he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness
unto the judgment of the great day. - Jude 6

For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed
upon with our house [oikētērion] which is from heaven
2 Corinthians 5:2

Looks like the rebellious angels gave up their supernatural bodies to become manlike,
and then mate with human women, producing half-breed nephilim

Hawkins
June 30th, 2017, 10:23 AM
What else would they be? Are you implying that there are celestial beings that reproduce "sons". Man has the capacity to reproduce children, of course. But only one man is called the son of God, that is the original... Adam in Luke 3:38. Adam is an original creation by God.

oikētērion οἰκητήριον = a glorified body
And the angels which kept not their first estate,
but left their own habitation [oikētērion]
he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness
unto the judgment of the great day. - Jude 6

For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed
upon with our house [oikētērion] which is from heaven
2 Corinthians 5:2

Looks like the rebellious angels gave up their supernatural bodies to become manlike,
and then mate with human women, producing half-breed nephilim

It can be similar to the term "son of man". It can be used to refer to a prophet. Or it can also be used to describe a usual human, that is, "in the shape/form of a human". "son of God" can be different from "sons of God" in terms of how they are used. son of God no doubt is seldom used in books to describe the outfit or form of someone. However it by no means says that "sons (a plural) of God" as a term hasn't been used to describe the outfit/form/shape of something similar to humans but actually not.

jamie
June 30th, 2017, 11:50 AM
I don't think that genetic description is good enough to define them. I believe that a more precise description can only be from whether they have a human soul. If they have a soul, they are descendants of Eve and Adam, if not (say as a result of mating back and forth with both humans and other species such as the chimps) they may not be properly considered as the descendants of Eve and Adam.

By the book of Enoch, some of them could possibly be what we commonly refer to as the demons.


People don't have a soul, they are a soul. They're a breathing soul or else they are a dead soul.

Does the book of Enoch claim that angelic beings have DNA?

genuineoriginal
June 30th, 2017, 05:34 PM
Does everyone here in this thread hold the view that "after" means after the flood?
I don't hold that view.

steko
June 30th, 2017, 05:43 PM
Genesis 6:4 KJV
(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.


Does everyone here in this thread hold the view that "after" means after the flood?

I don't.

Lazy afternoon
June 30th, 2017, 06:26 PM
Looks like the rebellious angels gave up their supernatural bodies to become manlike,
and then mate with human women, producing half-breed nephilim

God has never had any angels who rebel.

Men rebel.

LA

beameup
June 30th, 2017, 09:36 PM
God has never had any angels who rebel.

Men rebel.

LA

For if God spared not the angels that sinned - 2 Peter 2:4a
Obviously, you failed to read my above post #48 quote from the New Testament about Genesis 6 "sons of God".
Being a LAZY reader is no excuse. Better luck next time.

Lazy afternoon
July 1st, 2017, 01:38 AM
For if God spared not the angels that sinned - 2 Peter 2:4a
Obviously, you failed to read my above post #48 quote from the New Testament about Genesis 6 "sons of God".
Being a LAZY reader is no excuse. Better luck next time.

The angels of God never marry nor can they ever sin.

The prophets of God had sinned and led the generation astray before the flood.

Same as in the falling away at the end of every age since.

Mat 22:28 Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her.
Mat 22:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.
Mat 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

LA

beameup
July 1st, 2017, 02:45 AM
The angels of God never marry nor can they ever sin.

Mat 22:28 Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her.
Mat 22:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.
Mat 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

Now see how you do err by not reading the "fine print".
Peter specifically says that the "angels that sinned"
gave up their glorified bodies. They came to earth,
and their bodies were "changed" from that of a supernatural
one to one more like that of a human, in order to
contaminate the human genome by cross-breeding.
Half-breeds would no longer be eligible for salvation,
thus all mankind would have perished in sin.

jamie
July 1st, 2017, 09:06 AM
Peter specifically says that the "angels that sinned"
gave up their glorified bodies.


Nebuchadnezzar's exile is a metaphor for the current state of the rebellious angels.

Jesus' blood reconciled everything in heaven and on earth to the Father.

We will judge them at the appropriate time. Jesus died for sinners.

beameup
July 1st, 2017, 09:12 AM
Nebuchadnezzar's exile is a metaphor for the current state of the rebellious angels. :dizzy: :confused:
The 70 year Babylonian Captivity was God's punishment for not giving the LAND a Sabbath every 7th year.
The Israelites had to "repay" for not obeying this commandment and the land set IDLE for 70 years.

jamie
July 1st, 2017, 09:29 AM
The 70 year Babylonian Captivity was God's punishment for not giving the LAND a Sabbath every 7th year.
The Israelites had to "repay" for not obeying this commandment and the land set IDLE for 70 years.


Zoom.

Lazy afternoon
July 1st, 2017, 04:54 PM
Now see how you do err by not reading the "fine print".
Peter specifically says that the "angels that sinned"
gave up their glorified bodies. They came to earth,
and their bodies were "changed" from that of a supernatural
one to one more like that of a human, in order to
contaminate the human genome by cross-breeding.
Half-breeds would no longer be eligible for salvation,
thus all mankind would have perished in sin.

The bible says nothing about angels giving up glorified bodies, or that they contaminated the human race.

The Bible gives the blame for sin squarely on man sinning himself.

1Ti 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

The end of our times is the same as the end of the law age and as was before the flood of Noahs time.

The Bible is consistent throughout and all this hocus pokus about fallen angels is just falsehood.

It is the men through whom God spoke, who fall away and lead many stray.

Jesus never warned men about supposed fallen angels of Heaven.

You doctrine hides the truth from men as they did.

Mat 24:4 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you.
Mat 24:5 For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.

LA