Any thoughts on this? No exploding heads please.

[David in NJ]

Your grammar is faulty.

Job 2:1
2 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.
KJV


Likewise, the Book of Jude points to what the "sons of God" (Satan's angels) did in Genesis 6 to cause God to bring a flood to destroy their hybrid offspring, the giants...

Jude 6-7
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.
KJV

Thank You Dear Brother,
i firmly believe all that is written on this subject just as you pointed to Jude along with Job, 2 Peter ch2 and Revelation.

There are carnal minded men who oppose "it is written" and feel it necessary to 'correct' our understanding of Scripture for their earthbound limited religious minds.

Foolish minded men argue against Scripture in order to satisfy their unbelief.

 

[marks]

lol = love it when people fall upon the sword of grammar correction

God's word usage and placement is not in error but a person's understanding of what was said can be............

Correct grammar usage/application = please return to the question = did satan bring with himself the "sons of God"? = according to the Scriptural grammar usage.

It seems to me it just says that the sons of God showed themself before God, and Satan was there as one of them.

Much love!

 

[David in NJ]

It seems to me it just says that the sons of God showed themself before God, and Satan was there as one of them.

Much love!

BINGO

Your a rich man these days!!!

Best part is that your riches are eternal.

 

[Mr E]

Of course satan was a son of God, that was not the question posed at all.

The relevance of God breathed(Holy Spirit inspired) Scripture is the order of events that take place for our understanding;
and
not only the order of events but the clear distinction of characters in the Story being presented to us = "to whom the ends of this age has come."

I’m not following your logic. Was Satan a son of God, or separate and distinct from them?

Notice how the 'sons of God' are separated from satan in the context and satan enters in "among them".

So a clear distinction is made here for our understanding.

Maybe stick to playing Bingo.

 

[stunnedbygrace]

No the 'concept' of what the "sons of God" state means did not change, because it ALWAYS points to the 'heavenly state' of the angelic 'BODY', which Apostle Paul described as a "spiritual body" for the world to come regarding us.

If you move in a lawyerly and letter of the word fashion toward the text, yes, I guess that’s what you see, in which case, I have only found exactly one verse, in Job, to support the sex theory of the other lone verse being discussed.

But if you don’t move in a lawyerly fashion, you have God in the OT calling men His sons, such as, Israel “my son, my first born” and you have Samuel 7:14, 1 chron 7:13, and more.

I go the second route. I look at scripture as the seamless coat our Lord wore. I look for something To fit and weave into the ENTIRE Bible, in word, repeating themes, parables, etc. it’s just the way I approach it.

But I’m mostly done with responding in this thread unless anything new comes to me.

 

[David in NJ]

I’m not following your logic. Was Satan a son of God, or separate and distinct from them?



Maybe stick to playing Bingo.

lol x100 = i say this in joy of your response and not against you

 

[Davy]

lol = love it when people fall upon the sword of grammar correction

God's word usage and placement is not in error but a person's understanding of what was said can be............

Correct grammar usage/application = please return to the question = did satan bring with himself the "sons of God"? = according to the Scriptural grammar usage.

If you are a Christian, you should easily... realize that "sons of God" phrase is not used for God's people until the coming of Jesus Christ and His death and resurrection, with those who believe on Him as their Savior. John 1:12 is its first mention about those in Christ Jesus.

So my next question, that proves again that your grammar is wrong in Job is, were those "sons of God" in the Book of Job Christians??

Of course you know... they were not, but were angels, just by appearing before God's throne in the Heavenly dimension. And since the Book of Job says that Satan appeared 'in the MIDST' of them (which is the meaning in the Hebrew), that represents them as Satan's angels.

 

[marks]

Likewise, the Book of Jude points to what the "sons of God" (Satan's angels) did in Genesis 6 to cause God to bring a flood to destroy their hybrid offspring, the giants...

Jude 6-7
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.
KJV

I really do not understand how someone can read this passage in Jude, and not understand what happened in Genesis 6.

But then I've recently seen people who simply chose to not look at it as well. Maybe it has to do with comfort zones and perceived weirdness. Maybe some find this idea too threatening, or something.

Much love!

 

[marks]

BINGO

Your a rich man these days!!!

Best part is that your riches are eternal.

Eternally with Jesus!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That's rich!!!!!!!

So much love!

 

[David in NJ]

If you are a Christian, you should easily... realize that "sons of God" phrase is not used for God's people until the coming of Jesus Christ and His death and resurrection, with those who believe on Him as their Savior. John 1:12 is its first mention about those in Christ Jesus.

So my next question, that proves again that your grammar is wrong in Job is, were those "sons of God" in the Book of Job Christians??

Of course you know... they were not, but were angels, just by appearing before God's throne in the Heavenly dimension. And since the Book of Job says that Satan appeared 'in the MIDST' of them (which is the meaning in the Hebrew), that represents them as Satan's angels.

lol x100 Brother

i have to go now as i have an errand but will respond later = thank you for your love in Christ and know that i am laughing with you in Christ

When the Lord brought back [a]the captivity of Zion,
We were like those who dream.
2Then our mouth was filled with laughter,
And our tongue with singing.
Then they said among the nations,
“The Lord has done great things for them.”
3The Lord has done great things for us,
And we are glad.

 

[Davy]

If you move in a lawyerly and letter of the word fashion toward the text, yes, I guess that’s what you see, in which case, I have only found exactly one verse, in Job, to support the sex theory of the other lone verse being discussed.

But if you don’t move in a lawyerly fashion, you have God in the OT calling men His sons, such as, Israel “my son, my first born” and you have Samuel 7:14, 1 chron 7:13, and more.

I go the second route. I look at scripture as the seamless coat our Lord wore.

But I’m mostly done with responding in this thread unless anything new comes to me.

I in NO WAY agree with the usage of "sons of God" specifically in The OLD TESTAMENT being about God's people, period. There is NO SUCH Scripture passage using "sons of God" in the OT but only about 'angels'.

Now if some of you folks want to play 'fairy tale make believe', go ahead, but you're not going to be acting responsibly in interpretation of God's Word.

 

[marks]

I look at scripture as the seamless coat our Lord wore.

As if others don't?



Much love!

 

[Davy]

I really do not understand how someone can read this passage in Jude, and not understand what happened in Genesis 6.

But then I've recently seen people who simply chose to not look at it as well. Maybe it has to do with comfort zones and perceived weirdness. Maybe some find this idea too threatening, or something.

Much love!

Yeah, "too threatening" has it. That's exactly what it is, the idea scares the heck out of them.

But not only is the Genesis 6 mating of the angels with flesh woman a taboo subject in most sermons in today's Churches today, but many other Bible expressions God Himself uses, like the idea of flesh harlotry He uses in the spiritual sense, that's also taboo in the pulpits today. It just might hurt someone's feelings!

I like God's Word 'straight up'.

 

[marks]

I like God's Word 'straight up'.

Better results that way!

Much love!

 

[Mr E]

If you are a Christian, you should easily... realize that "sons of God" phrase is not used for God's people until the coming of Jesus Christ and His death and resurrection, with those who believe on Him as their Savior. John 1:12 is its first mention about those in Christ Jesus.

So my next question, that proves again that your grammar is wrong in Job is, were those "sons of God" in the Book of Job Christians??

Of course you know... they were not, but were angels, just by appearing before God's throne in the Heavenly dimension. And since the Book of Job says that Satan appeared 'in the MIDST' of them (which is the meaning in the Hebrew), that represents them as Satan's angels.

Demonstrably false. But don’t let facts get in your way.

 

[Taken]

Sort of like a Ken doll who was Barbies boyfriend? or with true anatomical correctness even in the parts hidden under clothing ?
Did those fallen angels create the human bodies for themselves or is it God who gave them anatomically correct human bodies to inhabit so they could do what you say they did?

1 Cor 15:
[38] But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body.

 

[stunnedbygrace]

I really do not understand how someone can read this passage in Jude, and not understand what happened in Genesis 6.

But then I've recently seen people who simply chose to not look at it as well. Maybe it has to do with comfort zones and perceived weirdness. Maybe some find this idea too threatening, or something.

Much love!

I understand it, because my mind is one of the minds that thinks in the way you do not understand.
The angels left their proper place to teach dark arts to women just as men who had sex with men left their proper place to also do things God forbids.

 

[marks]

Yeah, "too threatening" has it. That's exactly what it is, the idea scares the heck out of them.

But not only is the Genesis 6 mating of the angels with flesh woman a taboo subject in most sermons in today's Churches today, but many other Bible expressions God Himself uses, like the idea of flesh harlotry He uses in the spiritual sense, that's also taboo in the pulpits today. It just might hurt someone's feelings!

I like God's Word 'straight up'.

If you come to Jude, and you've already determined for yourself that angels did not fornicate with human women, then you have to do something with those words, and what it will come down to is that you will have to disbelieve them. Call them allegory, and make up a meaning. Or redefine the words to mean something else. Or simply refuse to follow the flow of the sentence. You have to do something!

And that something will be, a man endeavoring to find a way to disbelieve the Word of God.

So what happens when you come to another "difficult" passage? Now that you've allowed yourself that liberty with the text? Not good! I've seen people walk down that road, and end up in very strange places.

Much love!

 

[marks]

I understand it, because my mind is one of the minds that thinks in the way you do not understand.
The angels left their proper place to teach dark arts to women just as men who had sex with men left their proper place to also do things God forbids.

Except, what it actually says is something different than that. So it seems to me you are rejecting what is written because you have a different idea. Now it that seems too "lawyerly" for you, what can I say? But to me, that is not at all safe.

One thing I find in the Bible is safety from error, but only IF you will hold to what it actually says, without demanding it mean something different.

Much love!

 

[stunnedbygrace]

I in NO WAY agree with the usage of "sons of God" specifically in The OLD TESTAMENT being about God's people, period. There is NO SUCH Scripture passage using "sons of God" in the OT but only about 'angels'.

Now if some of you folks want to play 'fairy tale make believe', go ahead, but you're not going to be acting responsibly in interpretation of God's Word.

Well, yes, as I said, it depends if you’re laboring over the letter or not. I don’t. I have to do things the way He leads me and in the way He teaches me. So do you.