GEN 1:1-2 SPEAKS MORE THAN CREATION!

[Enow]

Well in the book of Job, it is generally agreed that the sons of god being referred to cannot be anything else but angels since they are described as existing some time before the creation of the heavens and the earth, singing in the presence of God himself as they witnessed the creation event.

We sing of the works of God's creation and yet we were not there.

Job 38:6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof; 7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? 8 Or who shut up the sea with doors, when it brake forth, as if it had issued out of the womb?

Since the earth was formed on day 3 and the stars on day 4, then we are not talking about the same day, now are we? So verse 7 is an inroad to Job as he was among the sons of God when they presented themselves 2 times in worship and praise for knowing better about God's hand in creation. Since verse 8 continues the series of question regarding God's work, I do not believe we should take verse 7 with verse 6 as meaning that was the when of it but when the stars sang together ( the time of their worship ) when the sons of God shouted for joy.

Job is the oldest book in the Bible, before even the first five books of Moses, and it gives a very strong indication of the known identity of the sons of god. Keeping the term "sons of god" in Genesis 6 in context, we see that neither Seth, his descendants or anyone else was ever referred to as "sons of god" in any kind of spiritual sense, nor in a physical sense minus Adam, since Adam, like the angels was a direct creation of God.

The English word sons is derived from the Hebrew word "ben" and it is defined in Strong's Concordance as..

HTML Bible Index - King James Version - Strongs Concordance - Frames Version

"from 'banah' (1129); a son (as a builder of the family name), in the widest sense (of literal and figurative relationship, including grandson, subject, nation, quality or condition, etc"

Since angels are not marrying nor given in marriage, ...

Matthew 22:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. 30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

....the sons of God as in the builder of the family name of Israel is the lineage of Seth.

John 3:38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

Since John 1:12-13 testify who anyone becomes the sons of God now by believing in Jesus Christ, then that which was the former mentioned was how they were identified as the sons of God before by bloodline and by Judaism. there is no point to refer to how it is not any more unless it was.

So when we are told that "men" began to multiply on the face of the earth, and that the sons of God saw the daughters of those "men" and took whoever they chose as wives, we see the human race, who are the generations of Adam clearly being distinguished from this other group referred to as the "sons of God". The clear cut logical meaning is that these beings were sons of God, rather than of men, or humanity. So in Genesis 6, you are only left with two groups, men and the daughters who were born from those men who are of the generations of Adam, and the other group called "the sons of God" who had to get a piece of all that action who are NOT of the generations of Adam and henceforth are not men by definition. So therefore, the sons of God can only be angels, unless you want to believe they were flying spaghetti monsters. Let reason prevail and the Bible will actually begin to make sense.

Yet the offspring were men, mighty men, men of renown, but still men. And it was not because of this mingling with angels which scripture says they cannot do, in being able to take women to be called "wives" to them in His words, but judgment came on mankind because of the wicked thoughts was continually. He said it before the flood and repeated it again after the flood.

Genesis 6:2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. 3 And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. 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. 5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. 7 And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them. 8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord.

Genesis 8:20 And Noah builded an altar unto the Lord; and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar.
21 And the Lord smelled a sweet savour; and the Lord said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done. 22 While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.

Something to discern with the Lord about regarding these truths in His words.

 

[Enow]

FALSE. It not Job who is found among the sons of God. It is the angels of God and Satan. Read Job again.

I did. The 2 times Satan was among the sons of God , 2 times Job was pointed out. Why? Because he was among the sons of God. If he was not among them, would that not be slighting the sons of God when they were presenting themselves to the Lord if the Lord & Satan were paying attention to someone else that was not among them and yet looking at somewhere else? That doesn't track, now does it?

FALSE. That is called specious reasoning.

And here is the evidence: Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding... Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof; When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? (Job 38:4,6,7)

Have you ever considered that when the morning stars sang was when all the sons of God shouted for joy? Verse 7 has nothing to do with verse 6 nor verse 8 if you read them in context. For all you know, there were songs of God's creation sang in the early morning hours or the evening when the stars were out as singing together with them as they also shouted for joy over the wonders of God's creation.

Since Adam and Eve were created on the 6th day, and this is a reference to the 1st day of creation ("when I laid the foundations of the earth") it should be crystal clear to anyone (other than those who are wilfully blind) that those "sons of God" were angels who observed God while He was creating and rejoiced ("shouted for joy") because it was excellent.

Well, there is cause for this willfully blindness when angels are not marrying nor given in marriage and certainly neither the fallen angels either for them to be called "the sons of God" so you have a contrariness there.

Matthew 22:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. 30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

And since land appeared on day 3. The earth was a water planet with an upper atmosphere on day 2. On day one, it did not existed because day one was about the creation of what a day was, an evening and morning for that day and everyday. Stars appeared on day 4 so they were not there when God had laid the foundation of land on day 3.

So can you see my just cause for reasoning otherwise that verse 7 cannot be tied in with verse 6 in Job 38:6-8 ?

So I will leave you to your false beliefs (and this is only the tip of the iceberg). I could make a list of all your false ideas, but would that make any difference? You would continue to double down on your doctrines.

Brother Enoch. Hopefully the Lord has helped me to share why I have just cause to believe otherwise. Thank you for sharing, but I disagree with you.

 

[Dcopymope]

We sing of the works of God's creation and yet we were not there.

We sure as hell weren't there.

Job 38:6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof; 7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? 8 Or who shut up the sea with doors, when it brake forth, as if it had issued out of the womb?

Since the earth was formed on day 3 and the stars on day 4, then we are not talking about the same day, now are we? So verse 7 is an inroad to Job as he was among the sons of God when they presented themselves 2 times in worship and praise for knowing better about God's hand in creation. Since verse 8 continues the series of question regarding God's work, I do not believe we should take verse 7 with verse 6 as meaning that was the when of it but when the stars sang together ( the time of their worship ) when the sons of God shouted for joy.

Your confusion comes from the assumption that Job is referring to the stars you see at night. For one, the text follows the same format throughout the book of Job, when different terms are used to refer to the same thing, such as the verse below.

(Job 38:5) "Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?"

The understanding from the "foundations thereof" is that these morning stars were there before the six day creation even began. And "Morning Star", just like "sons of god" are not titles exclusively referring to any one person or entity. Just like "sons of god" and "morning stars" are title's given to angels, so also is Jesus referred to with the same title. The difference, is that Jesus, being "the word made flesh", is THE Morning Star, THE Son of God.

(Revelation 22:16) "I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star."

The English word sons is derived from the Hebrew word "ben" and it is defined in Strong's Concordance as..

HTML Bible Index - King James Version - Strongs Concordance - Frames Version

"from 'banah' (1129); a son (as a builder of the family name), in the widest sense (of literal and figurative relationship, including grandson, subject, nation, quality or condition, etc"

Since angels are not marrying nor given in marriage, ...

Matthew 22:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. 30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

....the sons of God as in the builder of the family name of Israel is the lineage of Seth.

John 3:38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

Since John 1:12-13 testify who anyone becomes the sons of God now by believing in Jesus Christ, then that which was the former mentioned was how they were identified as the sons of God before by bloodline and by Judaism. there is no point to refer to how it is not any more unless it was.

There is no "John 3:38", you got your scriptures all mixed up. Luke 3:38 is the verse you are citing here. And yes, it says Adam was the son of God, like I said before, because he was a direct creation of God himself, just like the angels were. Just like Jesus, Adam didn't have an earthly father. His father was God himself. This is why the backwards tracking of his lineage stops with Adam, because Jesus is supposed to be the second Adam, a new creation from the Father, so thanks for proving my point. The discussion should end there, but of course, people are stubborn. As for the rest of humanity, if you can cite a scripture of any other man on earth before Jesus being referred to as "sons of God" besides Adam, by all means post it, because I couldn't find it, and Enoch111 couldn't find it either. Even the Hebrews themselves were never called sons of God.

Yet the offspring were men, mighty men, men of renown, but still men. And it was not because of this mingling with angels which scripture says they cannot do, in being able to take women to be called "wives" to them in His words, but judgment came on mankind because of the wicked thoughts was continually. He said it before the flood and repeated it again after the flood.

Where is the scripture that explicitly states angels cannot mix with humans? On what basis are you limiting this property? Because scripture says quite the contrary. If an angel were to walk up to you tomorrow on the street, you wouldn't know the difference.

(Jude 1:6) "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.

(Hebrews 13:1-2) "Let brotherly love continue. {2} Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares."

Christians need to stop pretending to know the mechanics, the ends and outs of how spiritual beings, like God, or angels, or anything else in heaven is supposed to interact with the natural, or our material existence. You know next to zero about how it works beyond what is written in the Bible.

 

[stunnedbygrace]

When we have so many scriptures saying different things, then we need to study and ask our self, is there a reason? If so, what is different?

God said "let us" Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:
Most likely, angels were with God and He let them input their ideas. Creation of different races would come about from this. Do we have different races? Makes sense that the different races were made here instead of having a form of evolution take place.

In Gen 1 it speaks about animals of the earth, Gen 2 speaking of animals of the field, as apposed to wild animals. Do we know there was domestic animals in Gen 2? Yes, Abel gave one for sacrifice, while Cain gave produce of garden.

Gen 1, mankind was told to replenish the earth, world, not field.

The main thing is LORD God, the God of Abraham, was also the God of Adam. Luk 3:38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

It is only logical that all the races of mankind were made right there in Gen 1 and God's covenant people in Gen 2?

This is getting to be a little too much for me. I can't follow you. I see it as more likely that the races began at the tower of babel, by God's hand, but that's just me.

 

[Enow]

We sure as hell weren't there.

Your confusion comes from the assumption that Job is referring to the stars you see at night. For one, the text follows the same format throughout the book of Job, when different terms are used to refer to the same thing, such as the verse below.

Actually, God was saying that to Job in pointing out he should know better when he was with the sons of God singing the wonders of His creation.

Consider this song "How Great Thou Art". Here are some of the lyrics.

"O Lord my God,
When I in awesome wonder
Consider all
The works Thy Hand hath made,
I see the stars,
I hear the mighty thunder,
Thy pow'r throughout
The universe displayed,

When through the woods
And forest glades I wander
I hear the birds
Sing sweetly in the trees,
When I look down
From lofty mountain grandeur
And hear the brook
And feel the gentle breeze,

Then sings my soul,
My Savior God, to Thee,
How great Thou art!
How great Thou art!
Then sings my soul,
My Savior God, to Thee,
How great Thou art!
How great Thou art!"

Did Job has songs like that praising God of the wonder of His creation when the sons of God presented themselves to the Lord in worship?

The understanding from the "foundations thereof" is that these morning stars were there before the six day creation even began. And "Morning Star", just like "sons of god" are not titles exclusively referring to any one person or entity. Just like "sons of god" and "morning stars" are title's given to angels, so also is Jesus referred to with the same title. The difference, is that Jesus, being "the word made flesh", is THE Morning Star, THE Son of God.

I understand, but then since sons of God neither marry nor given in marriage as angels, then the sons of God in the Book of Job are the godly lineage of Seth for Job to be pointed out 2 times to Satan when presenting themselves.

The one thing we never considered is that the morning stars sang and the sons of God shouted for joy is what Job was a part of. So in this iron sharped iron, I can see how the morning stars sang instead of seeing it as singing in the morning when the stars are still out before dawn.

There is no "John 3:38", you got your scriptures all mixed up. Luke 3:38 is the verse you are citing here.

Yep That is the correct reference I has meant to cite. Thanks for the correction.

And yes, it says Adam was the son of God, like I said before, because he was a direct creation of God himself, just like the angels were. Just like Jesus, Adam didn't have an earthly father. His father was God himself. This is why the backwards tracking of his lineage stops with Adam, because Jesus is supposed to be the second Adam, a new creation from the Father, so thanks for proving my point. The discussion should end there, but of course, people are stubborn. As for the rest of humanity, if you can cite a scripture of any other man on earth before Jesus being referred to as "sons of God" besides Adam, by all means post it, because I couldn't find it, and Enoch111 couldn't find it either. Even the Hebrews themselves were never called sons of God.

Well, that was what I had been assigning Job as one of the sons of God presenting themselves to the Lord for. That is the only way it makes sense when John 1:12-13 bothered to say what was not how men can become sons of God by unless that was how before believing in Jesus Christ was how one become the sons of God now.

Where is the scripture that explicitly states angels cannot mix with humans? On what basis are you limiting this property? Because scripture says quite the contrary. If an angel were to walk up to you tomorrow on the street, you wouldn't know the difference.

Doesn't mean they were created for procreation. If they were created for procreation, then fallen angels are too. BUT there are 2 things to consider for ramification of applying that belief.

God would not join fallen angels let alone angels to women to be called "wives" to them in His words.

The offspring of said marriage are still men. It doesn't matter if there were giants in the earth in those days when there were giants in the earth afterwards; meaning Goliath as an example.

The global flood was the judgment because of the wickedness of men's thoughts were evil continually; not for "interbreeding" with fallen angels.

All children from the womb are from the Lord; the devil has no part in it when sin & death being carried over genetically and spiritually is enough.

Christians need to stop pretending to know the mechanics, the ends and outs of how spiritual beings, like God, or angels, or anything else in heaven is supposed to interact with the natural, or our material existence. You know next to zero about how it works beyond what is written in the Bible.

Matthew 22:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. 30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

Mark 12:24 And Jesus answering said unto them, Do ye not therefore err, because ye know not the scriptures, neither the power of God? 25 For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven.

Luke 20:34 And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage: 35 But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage: 36 Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.

These scriptures reproves the misapplication of the sons of God being angels plainly enough because angels do not marry nor would God give them in marriage because they were not created to procreate. And fallen angels do not suddenly find themselves able to procreate for God to give them in marriage to call the women "wives" in His words to them either.

Pray about it. I know I cannot convince you of the truth in His words as there can be no lie of the truth.

 

[theophilus]

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Gen 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

Beginning to think that there is more here than just creation.

God doesn't create something without form and void. So it had to become that away. A previous earth with people that was destroyed by the works of Satan. This would explain the bones of humans and animals that go back thousands of years. Why not, it would agree with scientist that put the age back that far. I feel sure that God would not create something that he made to look like something it isn't.

Believing the above does not take away anything we already know, it expands it.

There is another explanation for the fossils we find. They are the result of the world wide flood in Noah's time. It they are the remnants of a previous world, then what evidence is there that the flood occurred?
It is possible that there was a previous earth. The Bible ends with the creation of a new earth to replace one ruined by sin; perhaps it begins the same way. But if that is the case there is no physical evidence of that old world.

 

[101G]

Are you inferring that God has no image by that verse "of the invisible God"?

Invisible means not presently seen because that same word is used to describe Jesus Christ now as the invisible King.

1 Timothy 1:16 Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might shew forth all longsuffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting. 17 Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen.

As it is, you sure did stretch that meaning on day 6 and yet no mention of creating man on day 3 in Genesis 1:9-13

GINOLJC, First thanks for the reply, second, yes, God Image is himself in Flesh. and third, in his glorified stated Jesus, who is Spirit, the Holy Spirit invisible as the son of man and has always been. but as Son of God he is mad visable.

fourth, while you're in 1 Timothy you should have read this, and would have understood this. 1 Timothy 6:15 "Which in his times he shall shew, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords; verse 16 "Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen".

with that statement it eliminates any other "PERSON" in the Godhead, or any godhead. for the Lord Jesus is the "ONLY" one with immortality, meaning "EVERLASTING" life. that the ONLY true Image. meaning he was manifested in flesh.

PICJAG.

 

[101G]

Well in the book of Job, it is generally agreed that the sons of god being referred to cannot be anything else but angels since they are described as existing some time before the creation of the heavens and the earth, singing in the presence of God himself as they witnessed the creation event.

that's one of the biggest lies ever told. we'll reveal who the sons of God are in Job,

later today we'll address that.

PICJAG.

 

[reformed1689]

first thanks for the reply, second ERROR on your part, "MANKIND", the male and the female was made on day 6...

look at what you posted. was man formed on Day 6 or was he made "Male" and "Female" on day 6.

PICJAG.

Are you back on this nonsense again?

 

[Enow]

GINOLJC, First thanks for the reply, second, yes, God Image is himself in Flesh. and third, in his glorified stated Jesus, who is Spirit, the Holy Spirit invisible as the son of man and has always been. but as Son of God he is mad visable.

Explain Jesus saying Abraham had seen Him, John 8:56-59 inferring that He had a celestial body that ate and drank before His incarnation as the Son of Man.

Then explain what Jesus meant about scriptures testifying of Him ( John 5:39-40 ) that Moses had written of Him in John 5:46-47 whereby Isaac had also seen the Lord in Genesis 26:1-2 & Jacob had seen the Lord face to face in Genesis 32:24-30 after wrestling with Him.

So I do maintain this contention that invisible is just referring to God and Jesus not presently seen since they are in Heaven.

Therefore the image of the invisible God has an image not presently seen otherwise we would not be seeing Jesus at all.

fourth, while you're in 1 Timothy you should have read this, and would have understood this. 1 Timothy 6:15 "Which in his times he shall shew, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords; verse 16 "Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen".

with that statement it eliminates any other "PERSON" in the Godhead, or any godhead. for the Lord Jesus is the "ONLY" one with immortality, meaning "EVERLASTING" life. that the ONLY true Image. meaning he was manifested in flesh.

PICJAG.

Since referring to that immortality state is why presently, no man in this corruptible flesh can approach Him but we will, when we inherit the incorruptible and immortality and see Him face to face.

 

[101G]

Who are the Sons of God in Job 38?
The scripture, Job 38:7 "When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?”.

For many of years, this verse has been taken out of context or just misunderstood for several reasons
A. to support a false doctrine, “Angels are sons of God”. or
B. just sheer ignorance without the wisdom of God.

so let’s put both of these scenario to rest by “REASON”. let's get educated, as our Lord and Saviour Jesus the Christ said, Isaiah 1:18 "Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool”.

so without any beating around the bush, we will give you the answer to the question first and then prove it to you in the bible, 1 Thessalonians 5:21 "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good”. so let’s do that.

the sons of God here in Job 38 are a metaphor for A. the actual stars in the heavens and B. the sun and the moon. now lets prove it

Proof #1. we start in the book of James, yes the book of James. Follow and understand. James 1:17 "Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning”. The almighty is called the “Father” of “light's", and lights here is plural, and is the Greek word, G5457 φῶς phos (fōs') n. which means luminousness. Now hold that thought and go to Thayer's Greek Definitions dictionary and or the blue letter bible online, and look up G3962 πατήρ pater, (Father)
- Transliteration: Pater
- Phonetic: pat-ayr'
- Definition:
1. generator or male ancestor
a. either the nearest ancestor: father of the corporeal nature, natural fathers, both parents.
THIS IS WHAT MOST PEOPLE THINK WHEN THEY HEAR THE WORD “FATHER”.

but we are interested in the 3rd definition, and here it is, listen.
3. God is called the Father
a. of the stars, the heavenly luminaries, because he is their creator, upholder, ruler

(BINGO), God is called the Father of the “STARS”, and the "heavenly luminaries". Yes, the literal stars in the sky. one down one more to go. Job 38 said, morning “stars” not morning “star”. A star is a luminous sphere of plasma held together by its own gravity. The nearest star to Earth is the Sun. Many other stars are visible to the naked eye from Earth during the night, appearing as a multitude of fixed luminous points in the sky due to their immense distance from Earth. Again, the stars are the actual stars in the heavens. Now, go to dictionary.com, or the free dictionary, or any dictionary and look up luminaries in the plural. answer, a celestial body, as the sun or moon. (BINGO). Proof #1 is complete, for the actual stars in the heavens and the sun and the moon are call the sons of God, because God is their creator and upholder, which is a metaphor.

Proof #2. let’s see this sun and moon and the actual stars as to what they did in Job 38:7. Remember the Almighty said that they sang and shouted for joy. Let’s see this metaphor clearly. Psalms 148:1 "Praise ye the LORD. Praise ye the LORD from the heavens: praise him in the heights. Verse 2 Praise ye him, all his angels: praise ye him, all his hosts. 3 Praise ye him, sun and moon: praise him, all ye stars of light. 4 Praise him, ye heavens of heavens, and ye waters that be above the heavens. 5 Let them praise the name of the LORD: for he commanded, and they were created”. Now what do the word praise mean here? It is the Hebrew word, H1984 הָלַל halal (haw-lal') v. which can be translated as “sing”, or “shine”. the stars, the sun and the moon sang or praised God by shining their lights. now the other one, "They shouted for joy". Psalms 65:13 "The pastures are clothed with flocks; the valleys also are covered over with corn; they shout for joy, they also sing”. The pastures, and valleys also praising God? Yes, how? by shouting for joy and singing, (just exactly what happen Job 38 with the stars, and the sun and the moon). It’s all a metaphor. Do we now understand.

so it's no angels shouting or singing in Job 38. now if you want to see sons of God in Job one need to go to Job 1:3.

just in case one didn't grasp the full understand of the metaphor you might want to re-read this post again.

hoped this helped.

PICJAG.

 

[101G]

First thanks for the reply,
#1.

Explain Jesus saying Abraham had seen Him, John 8:56-59 inferring that He had a celestial body that ate and drank before His incarnation as the Son of Man.

sure, I'll use just one scripture, Hosea 12:10 "I have also spoken by the prophets, and I have multiplied visions, and used similitudes, by the ministry of the prophets." NOTICE similitude(s). with the "s" at the end.
"similitudes": H1819 דָּמָה damah (daw-maw') v.
1. to compare.
2. (by implication) to resemble, liken, consider.
[a primitive root]
KJV: compare, devise, (be) like(-n), mean, think, use similitudes.

likeness; resemblance:
a similitude of habits.
a person or thing that is like or the match or counterpart of another:
This expression is a similitude of the other.
semblance; image:
a similitude of the truth.
a likening or comparison in the form of a simile, parable, or allegory:

an apperance is what our Lord Jesus did wirh Abrahan, he appeared, not "MANIFESTED" as or in the form, or by similitude unto abraham. just like unto Moses in the burning bush. and the figure, fashion, image, or star as a man unto the world as a babe from the womb. an apperance in not nessary a MANIFESTATION.

#2.

Then explain what Jesus meant about scriptures testifying of Him ( John 5:39-40 ) that Moses had written of Him in John 5:46-47 whereby Isaac had also seen the Lord in Genesis 26:1-2 & Jacob had seen the Lord face to face in Genesis 32:24-30 after wrestling with Him.

first Jacob didn't wrestle with God, but an angel who stand in for God. supportive scripture, Hosea 12:3 "He took his brother by the heel in the womb, and by his strength he had power with God: Hosea 12:4 "Yea, he had power over the angel, and prevailed: he wept, and made supplication unto him: he found him in Bethel, and there he spake with us". so no Jacob didn't wrestle with God.

#3.

So I do maintain this contention that invisible is just referring to God and Jesus not presently seen since they are in Heaven.

ERROR on your Part, JUESU is God, all by himself. John saw the Lord Jesus on earth in the Spirit, before he was call up to heaven to see the visions there, scripture, Revelation 1:12 "And I turned to see the voice that spake with me. And being turned, I saw seven golden candlesticks; cerse 13 "And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle". here John was on earth before he was called up to heaven in chapter 4. (please note the Son of Man is spirit, and the son of God is flesh and bone that MANIFEST the son of man).

without arguing, who John saw was the true and only LIVING God, Jesus the Holy Spirit. but that's another topic, whach has already been discussed.

PICJAG.

 

[Enow]

First thanks for the reply,
#1.
sure, I'll use just one scripture, Hosea 12:10 "I have also spoken by the prophets, and I have multiplied visions, and used similitudes, by the ministry of the prophets." NOTICE similitude(s). with the "s" at the end.
"similitudes": H1819 דָּמָה damah (daw-maw') v.
1. to compare.
2. (by implication) to resemble, liken, consider.
[a primitive root]
KJV: compare, devise, (be) like(-n), mean, think, use similitudes.

likeness; resemblance:
a similitude of habits.
a person or thing that is like or the match or counterpart of another:
This expression is a similitude of the other.
semblance; image:
a similitude of the truth.
a likening or comparison in the form of a simile, parable, or allegory:

an apperance is what our Lord Jesus did wirh Abrahan, he appeared, not "MANIFESTED" as or in the form, or by similitude unto abraham. just like unto Moses in the burning bush. and the figure, fashion, image, or star as a man unto the world as a babe from the womb. an apperance in not nessary a MANIFESTATION.

Can a manifestation eat and drink that Abraham prepared for Him in Genesis 18:1-8 ? Best discern that again with His help, brother.

#2.
first Jacob didn't wrestle with God, but an angel who stand in for God. supportive scripture, Hosea 12:3 "He took his brother by the heel in the womb, and by his strength he had power with God: Hosea 12:4 "Yea, he had power over the angel, and prevailed: he wept, and made supplication unto him: he found him in Bethel, and there he spake with us". so no Jacob didn't wrestle with God.

Hosea 12:3 has nothing to do with Jacob because it is referring not to Jacob.

Jacob named that place that he had seen God and lived. Either he meant what he had said or he lied.

#3.
ERROR on your Part, JUESU is God, all by himself. John saw the Lord Jesus on earth in the Spirit, before he was call up to heaven to see the visions there, scripture, Revelation 1:12 "And I turned to see the voice that spake with me. And being turned, I saw seven golden candlesticks; cerse 13 "And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle". here John was on earth before he was called up to heaven in chapter 4. (please note the Son of Man is spirit, and the son of God is flesh and bone that MANIFEST the son of man).

Seeing how the seven golden candlesticks are in Heaven when John was that heard that voice and that Son of Man was in the midst of it, I do not see how you are starining for John seeing Him on earth unless it just doesn't align with your current belief which would be a reproof to your belief, is it not?

without arguing, who John saw was the true and only LIVING God, Jesus the Holy Spirit. but that's another topic, whach has already been discussed.

PICJAG.

I do not want to argue either, but I can only pray that you will take time out and ask Jesus again at that throne of grace to help you see the truth in His words, even if it means being pruned so you can bear more fruit in the knowledge of Him in His words as John 15:1-2 says.

 

[101G]

Can a manifestation eat and drink that Abraham prepared for Him in Genesis 18:1-8 ? Best discern that again with His help, brother.

first thanks for the reply, second, yes, eat drink and walk and chew gum all at the same time.

Hosea 12:3 has nothing to do with Jacob because it is referring not to Jacob.

Jacob named that place that he had seen God and lived. Either he meant what he had said or he lied.

according to you, which don't count.

Seeing how the seven golden candlesticks are in Heaven

I need not to go any futher.

so I will end this conversation.

PICJAG.

 

[Dcopymope]

I understand, but then since sons of God neither marry nor given in marriage as angels, then the sons of God in the Book of Job are the godly lineage of Seth for Job to be pointed out 2 times to Satan when presenting themselves.

Jesus never said angels couldn't procreate, the context of the statement was in relation to the promised immortality the saints gain as a reward for believing in him. It was in response to the question of how the tradition of marriage would work in the Resurrection, them not believing in Resurrection. In his response, nothing was ever said about us no longer having the ability to procreate. Since we will become immortal like the angels in heaven, we too will no longer have a need to procreate, and that's all Jesus was saying.

The whole scripture:

(Matthew 22:23-33) "¶ The same day came to him the Sadducees, which say that there is no resurrection, and asked him, {24} Saying, Master, Moses said, If a man die, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother. {25} Now there were with us seven brethren: and the first, when he had married a wife, deceased, and, having no issue, left his wife unto his brother: {26} Likewise the second also, and the third, unto the seventh. {27} And last of all the woman died also. {28} Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her. {29} Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. {30} For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven. {31} But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, {32} I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living. {33} And when the multitude heard this, they were astonished at his doctrine."

(Luke 20:34-38) "And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage: {35} But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage: {36} Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection. {37} Now that the dead are raised, even Moses shewed at the bush, when he calleth the Lord the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. {38} For he is not a God of the dead, but of the living: for all live unto him."

The one thing we never considered is that the morning stars sang and the sons of God shouted for joy is what Job was a part of. So in this iron sharped iron, I can see how the morning stars sang instead of seeing it as singing in the morning when the stars are still out before dawn.

Well, that was what I had been assigning Job as one of the sons of God presenting themselves to the Lord for. That is the only way it makes sense when John 1:12-13 bothered to say what was not how men can become sons of God by unless that was how before believing in Jesus Christ was how one become the sons of God now.

Well if you believe we can become a son of God because you believe Job was, then what do we need Jesus for? What is his relevance to you as your so called "savior" if you can become an adopted son of God, or be saved without him? You can't have it both ways. Goes does not contradict himself, for he is not the author of confusion. The context of that verse was the sons of Gods witnessing the creation event, since humans didn't come into the picture until the very last day, it could not possibly be referring to Job singing about it since he is of the seed of men, or a worm, as he put it himself. He was nobody special.

(Job 25:1-6) "Then answered Bildad the Shuhite, and said, {2} Dominion and fear are with him, he maketh peace in his high places. {3} Is there any number of his armies? and upon whom doth not his light arise? {4} How then can man be justified with God? or how can he be clean that is born of a woman? {5} Behold even to the moon, and it shineth not; yea, the stars are not pure in his sight. {6} How much less man, that is a worm? and the son of man, which is a worm?"

These scriptures reproves the misapplication of the sons of God being angels plainly enough because angels do not marry nor would God give them in marriage because they were not created to procreate. And fallen angels do not suddenly find themselves able to procreate for God to give them in marriage to call the women "wives" in His words to them either.

I know I cannot convince you of the truth in His words as there can be no lie of the truth.

Well there isn't really a need to be praying about it for scripture demands that we are to use reason concerning the faith, so lets do that, instead of using "prayer" as a cop out. For angels to not be able to procreate with humans, they would have to be an entirely different creature, or species to begin with. And, well, they aren't really a different species than us. At best, they are just a higher form of what we are, which is why Jesus says that the promised glorified bodies will be equal or comparable to that of angels, themselves being "sons of God". Jesus wouldn't be making such a comparison if we weren't already similar to them to some degree to begin with.

(Hebrews 2:5-16) "For unto the angels hath he not put in subjection the world to come, whereof we speak. {6} But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man, that thou visitest him? {7} Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands: {8} Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him. But now we see not yet all things put under him. {9} But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man. {10} For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings. {11} For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren, {12} Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee. {13} And again, I will put my trust in him. And again, Behold I and the children which God hath given me. {14} Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; {15} And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. {16} For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham."

Now that it has been established how angels actually relate to us as not an entirely different species than humanity but a higher form of humanity, of the generations of Adam, the original human "son of God", it explains how angels are sometimes described as having a human form whenever they make an appearance.

(Genesis 19:1-11) "And there came two angels to Sodom at even; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom: and Lot seeing them rose up to meet them; and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground; {2} And he said, Behold now, my lords, turn in, I pray you, into your servant’s house, and tarry all night, and wash your feet, and ye shall rise up early, and go on your ways. And they said, Nay; but we will abide in the street all night. {3} And he pressed upon them greatly; and they turned in unto him, and entered into his house; and he made them a feast, and did bake unleavened bread, and they did eat. {4} ¶ But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter: {5} And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them. {6} And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him, {7} And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly. {8} Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof. {9} And they said, Stand back. And they said again, This one fellow came in to sojourn, and he will needs be a judge: now will we deal worse with thee, than with them. And they pressed sore upon the man, even Lot, and came near to break the door. {10} But the men put forth their hand, and pulled Lot into the house to them, and shut to the door. {11} And they smote the men that were at the door of the house with blindness, both small and great: so that they wearied themselves to find the door."

These homo's weren't roaming the streets to commit bestiality. As far as they knew, these two men were just that, men. They weren't just men though, they were angels that changed their heavenly estate to appear as the lower form of themselves, humans. Now its up to you to cite the scriptures stating the contrary.

 

[101G]

Now to the topic at hand, “GEN 1:1-2 SPEAKS MORE THAN CREATION!”
from what I’m seeing, or getting from the topic is this, ”the Gap theory”, leading to the false Idea of a “Pre-Adamic Race” of people before the first man Adam. the bible states, 1 Thessalonians 5:21 "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good”. so lets prove these theories false.

Pre-Adamic Race? In the name of the Lord Jesus this idea has no biblical basic. It arises out of ignorance, speculation, and the lack of wisdom. if any man lack wisdom, James 1:5 says "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. verse 6 "But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed. verse 7 "For let not that man think that he shall receive any thing of the Lord.

Let’s examine the reason why, and from where such an idea come from.

A. There must have been other people, because Cain got his wife from somewhere. other who have tried to accommodate an answer to this question fail in their attempts. Some have even tried to use the Seth line to explain Cain wife. everyone has failed at this venture.

B. Then there are those who reject the sons of God in chapter 6 as fallen angels saying, it must be other people. For there is no one else besides God, angels, and men. So, if not angels, then it had to be other, as in races, on the planet. HENCE THE GAP THEORY.

Both of those scenarios, good as they sound still fall short. for both theories, have been debunked. If these other people are not of the Seth line, and not fallen angels, who are they. those in the Lord Jesus will give the correct biblical answer. as humans, even we are subject to mistakes. this is why we encourage you the reader to search, and study with the Holy Spirit, and see if what we’re saying is truth. For one must test the spirit by the Spirit. With that said, let’s see who the people that Cain said might would kill him if they found out what he did to his brother Able.
The scriptures tell us who these other people are. Genesis 4:13 "And Cain said unto the LORD, My punishment is greater than I can bear. 14 Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth; and from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, that every one that findeth me shall slay me. 15 And the LORD said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the LORD set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him”.
For a surety, there was other people on the planet beside Adam, Eve, and Cain, (now dead Able), when these statements was made. from this assessment, the idea comes, that there must have been a Pre-Adamic race before Adam .. and Eve. and to support this idea they say in Genesis 1:2 there is a gap of time, and this is supported as some say ln the destruction of the earth according to the scriptures in Jeremiah 4:23 which they use to support their theory and or ideas. "I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light”. Void is used here also as well as in Genesis. some say this proves that the earth was destroyed, and now God, at verse 2 is recreating the earth, and making more people. We must disagree with this assessment. here are the reasons why we do not believe in a Pre-Adamic race, and its assessments. let’s start with the gap theory first, and put it to bed.

GAP THEORY EXPOSED
the Hebrew word H776 erets or Land, have TWO meaning. a. it could have the meaning of the whole EARTH. but also, it can have the meaning of a localization of LAND. Example, we say the LAND (H776 erets) of Lincoln, this is referring to the state or the Land of Illinois, and not the whole US or the planet. in Jeremiah, it is referring to the destruction of the LAND of Judah. H776 erets can also mean LAND in a certain place, as in Genesis 2:11 listen and understand, "The name of the first is Pison: that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold". a simple study of the word, and context of scriptures tell us that the Hebrew word H776 erets in Jeremiah is referring to the LAND of Judah, and its destruction, and not the entire Planet. this eliminates any notion of a gap theory, nor any pre-Adamic race. But the question remains. Who are these other people Cain was afraid of and also, where did his wife come from?.
To answer these questions, “Adam and Eve had Children in the Garden”. that topic will also answer the sons of God question in Genesis chapter 6.

so the study of the Hebrew word H776 erets which have more than one meaning give the child of God wisdom in the knowledge of Christ to understand the so-called mystery of the "Gap Theory", or the "pre-Adamic race" theory, which both are false.

Hope that helped.

PICJAG.

 

[Enow]

first thanks for the reply, second, yes, eat drink and walk and chew gum all at the same time.

according to you, which don't count.

I need not to go any futher.

so I will end this conversation.

PICJAG.

Okay, brother. We agree to disagree. Thanks for sharing, but I do hope you will continue to be taught by the Lord by His words rather than whatever.

 

[Enow]

Jesus never said angels couldn't procreate, the context of the statement was in relation to the promised immortality the saints gain as a reward for believing in him. It was in response to the question of how the tradition of marriage would work in the Resurrection, them not believing in Resurrection. In his response, nothing was ever said about us no longer having the ability to procreate. Since we will become immortal like the angels in heaven, we too will no longer have a need to procreate, and that's all Jesus was saying.

The whole point of marriage us to build a family name and that is what the Hebrew word "ben" meant as in "sons" of the phrase "sons of God"

Well if you believe we can become a son of God because you believe Job was, then what do we need Jesus for?

Because the bloodline of the sons of God were not getting into Heaven, but to a holding area called Abraham's bosom or Paradise.

Hebrews 11:13 These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.14 For they that say such things declare plainly that they seek a country.15 And truly, if they had been mindful of that country from whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned.16 But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city.

What is his relevance to you as your so called "savior" if you can become an adopted son of God, or be saved without him? You can't have it both ways. Goes does not contradict himself, for he is not the author of confusion. The context of that verse was the sons of Gods witnessing the creation event, since humans didn't come into the picture until the very last day, it could not possibly be referring to Job singing about it since he is of the seed of men, or a worm, as he put it himself. He was nobody special.

It is unfortunate that you tied in verse 7 with verse 6, but I do not believe that is rightly dividing the word of truth. I would think you would take pause for how God singled out Job 2 times when the sons of God presented themselves to the Lord but then again, it is on the Lord to help you see the truth in His words. I can't help you.

Well there isn't really a need to be praying about it for scripture demands that we are to use reason concerning the faith, so lets do that, instead of using "prayer" as a cop out. For angels to not be able to procreate with humans, they would have to be an entirely different creature, or species to begin with. And, well, they aren't really a different species than us. At best, they are just a higher form of what we are, which is why Jesus says that the promised glorified bodies will be equal or comparable to that of angels, themselves being "sons of God". Jesus wouldn't be making such a comparison if we weren't already similar to them to some degree to begin with.

Angels neither marry nor are given in marriage so they cannot take women to be wives to them in His words.

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

Now that it has been established how angels actually relate to us as not an entirely different species than humanity but a higher form of humanity, of the generations of Adam, the original human "son of God", it explains how angels are sometimes described as having a human form whenever they make an appearance.

Celestial beings are different from the terrestrial beings. If angels can procreate, then fallen angels too, and they would not bother with mankind ,but building their own superior armies.

Consider how God wants women to be silent in the churches for the word of God came to Adam first as man is to give His words. So there are no female angels because angels serves as messengers for the most part. That means they appear as men, but none appear as women for which we get the application of His words for why they were not created to marry nor given in marriage.

And I would think you would take pause if these sons of God were angels considering that someone reasoned them as leaving their first estate; not Heaven, but their celestial state, in becoming terrestrial to thwart God of having the Christ child come by tainting the bloodline. Now is God stupid? Is God blind? Do we really think these sons of God as fallen angels pulled the wool over His eyes in marrying them to women to be called wives to them in His words? Since children is a heritage from the Lord, then there is no way that was going to happen, let alone God marrying fallen angels to women, let alone for these fallen angels to be called the sons of God in His words.

Hopefully the Lord will help you understand my point of view even if you still disagree.



These homo's weren't roaming the streets to commit bestiality. As far as they knew, these two men were just that, men. They weren't just men though, they were angels that changed their heavenly estate to appear as the lower form of themselves, humans. Now its up to you to cite the scriptures stating the contrary.[/QUOTE]

 

[Nancy]

So, we do know the earth itself is billions of years old. Good, now it is not much of a stretch to believe human bones are older than just a few thousand years.

When it makes sense, it is generally correct.

Hi Rocky,
I've often wondered if God could have "repented of making man" as with Noah, ("Gen. 6:6 : "And the LORD regretted that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart.") and destroyed the earth from evil. He is a Creator so He creates. If this is possible, I wonder how many were saved before the destruction that caused the earth to be void and without form. So, is it not possible that He COULD have "created" another creation?? Who knows, it's fun to think about though

 

[Dcopymope]

The whole point of marriage us to build a family name and that is what the Hebrew word "ben" meant as in "sons" of the phrase "sons of God"



Because the bloodline of the sons of God were not getting into Heaven, but to a holding area called Abraham's bosom or Paradise.

Hebrews 11:13 These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.14 For they that say such things declare plainly that they seek a country.15 And truly, if they had been mindful of that country from whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned.16 But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city.



It is unfortunate that you tied in verse 7 with verse 6, but I do not believe that is rightly dividing the word of truth. I would think you would take pause for how God singled out Job 2 times when the sons of God presented themselves to the Lord but then again, it is on the Lord to help you see the truth in His words. I can't help you.



Angels neither marry nor are given in marriage so they cannot take women to be wives to them in His words.

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



Celestial beings are different from the terrestrial beings. If angels can procreate, then fallen angels too, and they would not bother with mankind ,but building their own superior armies.

Consider how God wants women to be silent in the churches for the word of God came to Adam first as man is to give His words. So there are no female angels because angels serves as messengers for the most part. That means they appear as men, but none appear as women for which we get the application of His words for why they were not created to marry nor given in marriage.

And I would think you would take pause if these sons of God were angels considering that someone reasoned them as leaving their first estate; not Heaven, but their celestial state, in becoming terrestrial to thwart God of having the Christ child come by tainting the bloodline. Now is God stupid? Is God blind? Do we really think these sons of God as fallen angels pulled the wool over His eyes in marrying them to women to be called wives to them in His words? Since children is a heritage from the Lord, then there is no way that was going to happen, let alone God marrying fallen angels to women, let alone for these fallen angels to be called the sons of God in His words.

Hopefully the Lord will help you understand my point of view even if you still disagree.


These homo's weren't roaming the streets to commit bestiality. As far as they knew, these two men were just that, men. They weren't just men though, they were angels that changed their heavenly estate to appear as the lower form of themselves, humans. Now its up to you to cite the scriptures stating the contrary.

‍

Repeatedly quoting scriptures out of context is not helping your argument at this point. Here is the bottom line, if angels cannot procreate with humans, then it means they are a different species. I cited the scriptures defining angels on no uncertain terms as a higher form of us, them being heavenly creatures in origin, not a different form than us. Now I'm still waiting on you, or others, to cite the scriptures stating angels to be a different species.