Any thoughts on this? No exploding heads please.

[marks]

You did not have an hours long conversation with me over how sons of God in that verse referred to fallen angels? Ooh you stinker don’t make me go get the posts!

What I've been saying all along is that bene elohim in the OT refers to angels. That the term "sons of God", and "son of God" refers to those who came directly from God, including Jesus, angels, Adam, and those who are born from above.

Much love!

 

[stunnedbygrace]

I've never said the nephilim are "sons of God", you know. It's not what I think. Nephilim are the progeny of the union between these angels who left their heavenly body to father children with human women. These were the nephilim, who's "spirits" are known through the OT as the rapha, destroyed in the flood, with no resurrection, unclean spirits who roam dry places until they can inhabit a body, as they had been used to. Until the day in which they are all cast into the abyss. As I understand this.

Much love!

You are right, you didn’t. Im the one who confused that. What you said is that the “sons of God” who went in to women are fallen angels, who begot the giant men/nephilim.

Show, with scriptures, where you think it says or intones, that Angels had sex with women. Ive listed the one above. Where are the other verses that have convinced you of the thought that angels had sex with women?

 

[marks]

You are right, you didn’t. Im the one who confused that. What you said is that the “sons of God” who went in to women are fallen angels, who begot the giant men/nephilim.

Show, with scriptures, where you think it says or intones, that Angels had sex with women. Ive listed the one above. Where are the other verses that have convinced you of the thought that angels had sex with women?

See my posts on Jude.

Much love!

 

[stunnedbygrace]

Nope. We are done. I’m not mad, just done. If you can’t lay it out quickly for me and I have to go through 10 pages to find a post where you mention Jude, we are done, because I’m not going to spend the time it would take to start at page one and read every one of your posts Looking for the name Jude.
But it’s good, because I need to move onto the other things I want to read and see.

 

[David in NJ]

I've heard that some think the mythological Titans were these offspring. Seems reasonable to me.

And then there's Jude,

Jude 1:6-7 KJV
6) 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.
7) Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

"in like manner", that is, they did the same thing. Giving themselves over to fornication, I think we all know what that means. "Going after strange (heteros- of a different kind) flesh".

The men of Sodom were trying to have sex with the angels. And in the same way, these angels which left their habitation (oiketerion - used one other place) had sex with women. In like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, going after flesh of a different kind.

This word habitation, oiketerion, is used one other place in the Bible,

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

And apparently this happened both before and after the flood. And the spirits of their offspring are the unclean spirits we saw in Jesus' day, and until now. Neither angel nor man, they roam dry places seeking a body to inhabit. The "Rapha", there's a very interesting word to track through the OT, and tells you more of their story.

Much love!

i SEE that you are pretty good at BINGO.......

 

[marks]

@stunnedbygrace

Just so you know, if you open up the search box you can name a thread, user, and key words to quickly find posts.

From posts 133 and 169,

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I've heard that some think the mythological Titans were these offspring. Seems reasonable to me.

And then there's Jude,

Jude 1:6-7 KJV
6) 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.

7) Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

"in like manner", that is, they did the same thing. Giving themselves over to fornication, I think we all know what that means. "Going after strange (heteros- of a different kind) flesh".

The men of Sodom were trying to have sex with the angels. And in the same way, these angels which left their habitation (oiketerion - used one other place) had sex with women. In like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, going after flesh of a different kind.

This word habitation, oiketerion, is used one other place in the Bible,

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

And apparently this happened both before and after the flood. And the spirits of their offspring are the unclean spirits we saw in Jesus' day, and until now. Neither angel nor man, they roam dry places seeking a body to inhabit. The "Rapha", there's a very interesting word to track through the OT, and tells you more of their story.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Actually it means flesh of a different kind, and you are correct, the flesh of one man is not a different kind from another man. Not between men. "Forbidden" would be a different word. This word means a different kind. Forget about the implications and just look at the words. If you deny the valid meaning because you don't like the implications, what good is that? They went after flesh of a different kind in fornication.

And this standard meaning of heteros used with flesh is validated here,

1 Corinthians 15:39-40 KJV
39) All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.
40) There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.

Not all flesh is the same, there are different kinds of flesh, men, beasts, fishes, birds . . . and celestial bodies, and terrestrial bodies.

These angels "left their habitation", their heavenly realm body, fornicating with flesh of a different kind. That's the plain saying of the passages. We either accept it or we do not.

I know many people who are perfectly willing to say, as you do here, things like this, "It says different, but what it really means is forbidden", but I'm not willing to do that. Words have meanings, and God uses words to communicate with us.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Whether you want to continue or not, that's of course up to you.

Much love!

 

[Mr E]

I've never said the nephilim are "sons of God", you know. It's not what I think. Nephilim are the progeny of the union between these angels who left their heavenly body to father children with human women. These were the nephilim, who's "spirits" are known through the OT as the rapha, destroyed in the flood, with no resurrection, unclean spirits who roam dry places until they can inhabit a body, as they had been used to. Until the day in which they are all cast into the abyss. As I understand this.

Much love!

It’s baffling to me that no one here has referenced the book of Enoch at all as it relates to this topic. He goes into great detail.

Not surprising, but baffling just the same.

 

[marks]

It’s baffling to me that no one here has referenced the book of Enoch at all as it relates to this topic. He goes into great detail.

Not surprising, but baffling just the same.

I haven't because I don't consider it to be inspired Scripture. And I find the answers in the Bible itself, so I don't need to.

Much love!

 

[David in NJ]

It’s baffling to me that no one here has referenced the book of Enoch at all as it relates to this topic. He goes into great detail.

Not surprising, but baffling just the same.

Here is why i left out the Book of Enoch = the unbelievers/doubters/illogical will cry foul/unfair/unscriptural/hearsay

Dwell on this: Luke ch16 and John ch5

Then he said, ‘I beg you therefore, father, that you would send him to my father’s house, 28for I have five brothers, that he may testify to them, lest they also come to this place of torment.’ 29Abraham said to him, ‘They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.’ 30And he said, ‘No, father Abraham; but if one goes to them from the dead, they will repent.’
31But he said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rise from the dead.’ ”

For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me. 47But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?”

 

[David in NJ]

I haven't because I don't consider it to be inspired Scripture. And I find the answers in the Bible itself, so I don't need to.

Much love!

More BINGO answers for you = 2 Peter 2:4-6

For if God did not spare the angels who sinned, but cast them down to https://biblehub.com/nkjv/2_peter/2.htm#footnoteshell and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved for judgment; 5and did not spare the ancient world, but saved Noah, one of eight people, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood on the world of the ungodly; 6and turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes, condemned them to destruction, making them an example to those who afterward would live ungodly;

 

[stunnedbygrace]

@stunnedbygrace

Just so you know, if you open up the search box you can name a thread, user, and key words to quickly find posts.

From posts 133 and 169,

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I've heard that some think the mythological Titans were these offspring. Seems reasonable to me.

And then there's Jude,

Jude 1:6-7 KJV
6) 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.

7) Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

"in like manner", that is, they did the same thing. Giving themselves over to fornication, I think we all know what that means. "Going after strange (heteros- of a different kind) flesh".

The men of Sodom were trying to have sex with the angels. And in the same way, these angels which left their habitation (oiketerion - used one other place) had sex with women. In like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, going after flesh of a different kind.

This word habitation, oiketerion, is used one other place in the Bible,

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

And apparently this happened both before and after the flood. And the spirits of their offspring are the unclean spirits we saw in Jesus' day, and until now. Neither angel nor man, they roam dry places seeking a body to inhabit. The "Rapha", there's a very interesting word to track through the OT, and tells you more of their story.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Actually it means flesh of a different kind, and you are correct, the flesh of one man is not a different kind from another man. Not between men. "Forbidden" would be a different word. This word means a different kind. Forget about the implications and just look at the words. If you deny the valid meaning because you don't like the implications, what good is that? They went after flesh of a different kind in fornication.

And this standard meaning of heteros used with flesh is validated here,

1 Corinthians 15:39-40 KJV
39) All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.
40) There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.

Not all flesh is the same, there are different kinds of flesh, men, beasts, fishes, birds . . . and celestial bodies, and terrestrial bodies.

These angels "left their habitation", their heavenly realm body, fornicating with flesh of a different kind. That's the plain saying of the passages. We either accept it or we do not.

I know many people who are perfectly willing to say, as you do here, things like this, "It says different, but what it really means is forbidden", but I'm not willing to do that. Words have meanings, and God uses words to communicate with us.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Whether you want to continue or not, that's of course up to you.

Much love!

Okay, thank you. I’m not going to read it or have any answer because I’m done with my thread. I found all I needed. I just need to move on to my next thing.
I kind of agree with Wrangler more than I don’t, that of all the things I have to focus on and look into, this is not so important. Everyone just think what you want to about it and…have a good evening!

 

[Mr E]

I haven't because I don't consider it to be inspired Scripture. And I find the answers in the Bible itself, so I don't need to.

Much love!

Like I said— not surprising.

Hey if you want to limit yourself to what some crusty old men centuries ago told you you’re allowed to read that’s fine with me. Scripture references Enoch, so I do too.

 

[marks]

Like I said— not surprising.

Hey if you want to limit yourself to what some crusty old men centuries ago told you you’re allowed to read that’s fine with me. Scripture references Enoch, so I do too.

You realize, right, that's not what I said?

Scripture quotes Enoch. The So-Called "book of Enoch" also contains the same quote. And everybody knows, I thought, that it wasn't written by Enoch, and contains factual errors?

What I said was, I don't consider it to be inspired Scripture. I've read it, a couple of times, and I don't see it to be Scripture.

Much love!

 

[marks]

Okay, thank you. I’m not going to read it or have any answer because I’m done with my thread. I found all I needed. I just need to move on to my next thing.
I kind of agree with Wrangler more than I don’t, that of all the things I have to focus on and look into, this is not so important. Everyone just think what you want to about it and…have a good evening!

I've found this interesting and informative, thank you!

Much love!

 

[marks]

More BINGO answers for you = 2 Peter 2:4-6

For if God did not spare the angels who sinned, but cast them down to 2 Peter 2 NKJVhell and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved for judgment; 5and did not spare the ancient world, but saved Noah, one of eight people, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood on the world of the ungodly; 6and turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes, condemned them to destruction, making them an example to those who afterward would live ungodly;

My understanding from history is that this is the view the Jews held, and was considered to be what had happened up until something like the 300's AD, when some of the church leaders thought it was too outlandish to be going around saying this is what we believe happened.

I find this question - what were the nephilim, and where did they come from - just like litmus paper to show who does and does not believe what they read, and is willing to do the work to understand.

Much love!

 

[Mr E]

You realize, right, that's not what I said?

Scripture quotes Enoch. The So-Called "book of Enoch" also contains the same quote. And everybody knows, I thought, that it wasn't written by Enoch, and contains factual errors?

What I said was, I don't consider it to be inspired Scripture. I've read it, a couple of times, and I don't see it to be Scripture.

Much love!

I think they could dig up an old clay jar that contains the original, handwritten gospel according to Jesus, signed in his blood with the thumbprints of the 12 apostles certifying authenticity and there would be some people who reject it because it’s not in the Bible.

Of course, Enoch was among such scrolls and the writers of the NT were certainly familiar with it.

 

[marks]

I think they could dig up an old clay jar that contains the original, handwritten gospel according to Jesus, signed in his blood with the thumbprints of the 12 apostles certifying authenticity and there would be some people who reject it because it’s not in the Bible.

Of course, Enoch was among such scrolls and the writers of the NT were certainly familiar with it.

There's no need to make this something it's not . . . No need to paint me absurd because I don't think the pseudepigraphic "Book of Enoch" belongs in the Bible, as if I were denying Matthew, or Psalms.

Much love!

 

[Mr E]

There's no need to make this something it's not . . . No need to paint me absurd because I don't think the pseudepigraphic "Book of Enoch" belongs in the Bible, as if I were denying Matthew, or Psalms.

Much love!

How about the book of Jasher?

And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher?

 

[marks]

How about the book of Jasher?

And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher?

Is there any assurance that we even have a real copy? My understanding is that there are various versions with no real provenance.

Much love!

 

[Davy]

sons of God means men of a certain bloodline that would branch off and be uncorrupted to bring forth Jesus from (the Branch and Shoot the prophets spoke of, how about that!

WHICH "sons of God"? New Testament or Old Testament? There is a difference. The Old Testament "sons of God", like in the Book of Job that appeared with Satan in front of God's Throne were the angels that rebelled with the devil. Likewise, the "sons of God" of Genesis 6 that took wives of flesh women were angels that rebelled with Satan.

In John 1:12, Christians are first called "sons of God". So what's the difference?

The difference is that in the 'world to come' we will inherit the "spiritual body" which Apostle Paul also called the "image of the heavenly" in 1 Corinthians 15. And just as the angels in God's Word that appeared to God's people, they were able to eat man's food and live upon this earth, and appeared with the image of 'man', even their angelic body made of spirit feeling like flesh. In 1 Corinthians 15 Paul even said that Jesus' body was made "a quickening spirit".

This is what the "sons of God" manifestation in the future is about. Those in the Faith on Jesus Christ are already called that, even though it is a term that is pointing to our future glorious state in the world to come. And that future state is linked to the TYPE of heavenly body the angels have...

Matt 22:30
30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.
KJV

Lord Jesus said that above. Many think He wasn't speaking that literally about our future state in the heavenly, yet He was speaking that literally, and Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 15 with revealing the 'type' of body of the world the come, backs Lord Jesus up on that.

So that first part, you need to re-write, and probably refer to New Testament examples of that "sons of God" phrase.