GEN 1:1-2 SPEAKS MORE THAN CREATION!

[Enow]

This just in!

New video emerges of Earth's crust breaking up in the days of Peleg...

1 Chronicles 1:19
"And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of the one was Peleg; because in his days the earth was divided: and his brother’s name was Joktan"

The video uses millions of years so the Bible verse citing Peleg does not apply.

I stopped watching at 4:10 in the video.

I believe the area of the Atlantic Ocean just dropped, forming that Atlantic Ocean, which divided the one land mass, but we will all know for sure one day when we come face to face with the Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[Dcopymope]

The video uses millions of years so the Bible verse citing Peleg does not apply.

I stopped watching at 4:10 in the video.

I believe the area of the Atlantic Ocean just dropped, forming that Atlantic Ocean, which divided the one land mass, but we will all know for sure one day when we come face to face with the Lord Jesus Christ.

This is the most plausible, occams razor theory for pangaea.

 

[Base12]

The video uses millions of years so the Bible verse citing Peleg does not apply.
I stopped watching at 4:10 in the video.

You've stated this before, but just consider that you may be throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

If One immediately stops listening the minute One hears something that they disagree with, they could be missing out on a learning opportunity.

What's wrong with changing 'millions of years' to 'overnight' or a 'few days' or something?

I honestly couldn't care less how long it took to split the land masses apart. The fact that the Bible and the Growing Earth Theory match in all other aspects is pretty darn compelling in my mind.

I believe the area of the Atlantic Ocean just dropped, forming that Atlantic Ocean, which divided the one land mass...

So somehow God is incapable of growing the Earth instantaneously, but he's talented enough to make continents drop in the same amount of time?

I guess I'm not understanding.

 

[Base12]

This is for all of you here that are capable of thinking outside of the box that you were told to stay in.

As for the rest of you, please don't respond with your childish mocking and idiotic 'knee-jerk' comments. You are like a Dunce in the classroom better left to stand in the corner.

We'll start with this...

Tower of Babel Incident

Those that don't "dumb down" God and Scripture know that the Tower of Babel Incident wasn't just a story about some half-baked building that went up a few dozen feet until God 'freaked out'.

The fact that new languages appeared out of nowhere implies that there existed Parallel Universes. Yes, we're talking about other versions of Earth that spoke different languages.

Again, if your mind is incapable of grasping such a concept, go back to watching Veggie Tales and let the adults have a conversation.

The 'Heaven' they were trying to reach into was not Earth's Atmosphere or Outer Space. They were trying to create a Portal or Wormhole similar to the movie Stargate. Something went haywire.

Long story short, what happened at the Tower of Babel was so dramatic, it caused these Parallel Universes along with their Timelines to merge into a type of Singularity.

It's literally the first, and maybe the only, documented evidence of a real life Mandela Affect.

Anyhow...

The point I'm making here is that anyone who tries to calculate age of the Earth using just the ages and lifespans of those mentioned in the Bible are playing a Fool's Game.

You people are worse than the ones that try and calculate the return of Jesus or the Rapture. If you can't get the ending figured out, what makes you think you got the beginning figured out?

You are both using the same flawed logic. There are so many events that took place in the Bible in which Time itself was messed with, it's simply impossible to calculate the age of the Earth using lifespans as the only part of the equation.

Here is another one...

Noah's Ark

When Noah entered the Ark, God SEALED IT. In other words, the Ark may have been a form of 'Time Machine'.

We know how long time passed *inside* of the Ark because there are detailed records in the Bible.

However...

How do we know that time passed normally *outside* of the Ark? Answer? WE DON'T KNOW.

In other words, millions of years could have passed for all we know. God has a way of throwing Monkey Wrenches like that into Man's over inflated egos.

Again, anyone who is incapable of considering the above points I have made really shouldn't even be teaching others.

You need to give everyone as much info as possible... even if they contradict. That is how progress is made.

In other words, teach people that there are several competing thoughts on verse so and so, and then give an example of each so they can decide for themselves.

This 'my way or the highway' attitude has gotten us nowhere, and now time is running out.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

This just in!

New video emerges of Earth's crust breaking up in the days of Peleg...

1 Chronicles 1:19
"And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of the one was Peleg; because in his days the earth was divided: and his brother’s name was Joktan"

Do a study of earth science and the flood

do a study of how the mountains were formed and how the layers of the earth, whcih are hard as rock wet bent and did not snap

it did not happen with a slow moving ship of the earth

 

[Rocky Wiley]

Maybe it's like saying...I made cupcakes.

Later I say, I made some of the cupcakes chocolate and some of them vanilla. I have just given more information in my second statement. It does not make my first statement untrue though.

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?

 

[Eternally Grateful]

This is for all of you here that are capable of thinking outside of the box that you were told to stay in.

As for the rest of you, please don't respond with your childish mocking and idiotic 'knee-jerk' comments. You are like a Dunce in the classroom better left to stand in the corner.

We'll start with this...

Tower of Babel Incident

Those that don't "dumb down" God and Scripture know that the Tower of Babel Incident wasn't just a story about some half-baked building that went up a few dozen feet until God 'freaked out'.

The fact that new languages appeared out of nowhere implies that there existed Parallel Universes. Yes, we're talking about other versions of Earth that spoke different languages.

Again, if your mind is incapable of grasping such a concept, go back to watching Veggie Tales and let the adults have a conversation.

The 'Heaven' they were trying to reach into was not Earth's Atmosphere or Outer Space. They were trying to create a Portal or Wormhole similar to the movie Stargate. Something went haywire.

Long story short, what happened at the Tower of Babel was so dramatic, it caused these Parallel Universes along with their Timelines to merge into a type of Singularity.

It's literally the first, and maybe the only, documented evidence of a real life Mandela Affect.

Anyhow...

The point I'm making here is that anyone who tries to calculate age of the Earth using just the ages and lifespans of those mentioned in the Bible are playing a Fool's Game.

You people are worse than the ones that try and calculate the return of Jesus or the Rapture. If you can't get the ending figured out, what makes you think you got the beginning figured out?

You are both using the same flawed logic. There are so many events that took place in the Bible in which Time itself was messed with, it's simply impossible to calculate the age of the Earth using lifespans as the only part of the equation.

Here is another one...

Noah's Ark

When Noah entered the Ark, God SEALED IT. In other words, the Ark may have been a form of 'Time Machine'.

We know how long time passed *inside* of the Ark because there are detailed records in the Bible.

However...

How do we know that time passed normally *outside* of the Ark? Answer? WE DON'T KNOW.

In other words, millions of years could have passed for all we know. God has a way of throwing Monkey Wrenches like that into Man's over inflated egos.

Again, anyone who is incapable of considering the above points I have made really shouldn't even be teaching others.

You need to give everyone as much info as possible... even if they contradict. That is how progress is made.

In other words, teach people that there are several competing thoughts on verse so and so, and then give an example of each so they can decide for themselves.

This 'my way or the highway' attitude has gotten us nowhere, and now time is running out.

So you tell people not to respond to you in a childish way. Then, You talk to them in a childish way

yeah that about says all I need to know

then the universe idea?

ouch

 

[101G]

God as apposed to LORD God

Greeting. God is "LORD", but LORD siginfy his creation, whom he LORD over. for he is responsible, and maintain it existence. and by suppling all its need to operate, that's why he is called "Father". and as son, he himself inherit what he already has as Spirit to be with us in flesh as God. that's only what "son" means. God inherit all of his Spirit in a single Body. (BINGO), which man was this IMAGE to Come.

earth as apposed to field

both are Ground, and both are is where all or most of land animals came from. one is cultivated, for a certian use, as well as the other.

beast of the earth as apposed to beast of the field

both are animals, and both "breaths".

LORD God - the same as God except Jehovah God or LORD God in print, is the covenant

NOT to put anyone down, but EXPOSING "ERRORS" in God Name. well there is a problem with the name Jehovah in PRINT. the ERROR or the false pen of the scribs has done it. scripture, Exodus 6:2 "And God spake unto Moses, and said unto him, I am the LORD:
Exodus 6:3 "And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them". ok, that's straightforward, and God don't lie. he, God said that Abraham did not know him by the name JEHOVAH ... right ... right. now the question, "if Abraham did not know God by the name JEHOVAH why was it "WRITTEN" that has him, Abraham, using that NAME? scripture, Genesis 22:14 "And Abraham called the name of that place Jehovahjireh: as it is said to this day, In the mount of the LORD it shall be seen". and Genesis come before Exodus. see how God exposes the lying pen of the scribs. JEHOVAH was never God personal name, never was and never is.

when the Lord Jesus said, "I come in my,my,my, Father's Name, and his name is JESUS/YESHUA, how did it go from Jehovah to JESUS? well it never did, but men lied and made it go from Jehovah to JESUS?

sif anyone has a covenant with JEHOVAH, they are in a covenant of DEATH.

PICJAG.

 

[Enow]

You've stated this before, but just consider that you may be throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

If One immediately stops listening the minute One hears something that they disagree with, they could be missing out on a learning opportunity.

What's wrong with changing 'millions of years' to 'overnight' or a 'few days' or something?

I would understand why you chose that video if you had stated that, but by not saying that, you kind of implied you had agreed with the video.

I honestly couldn't care less how long it took to split the land masses apart. The fact that the Bible and the Growing Earth Theory match in all other aspects is pretty darn compelling in my mind.

I am not sure how that could occur in the days of Peleg which was after the flood for any one to survive that expanding earth event if it happened in a very short time. It would be a majpr event just as a global flood was, if not more.

So somehow God is incapable of growing the Earth instantaneously, but he's talented enough to make continents drop in the same amount of time?

I guess I'm not understanding.

The other thing is finding huge man made columns in the Atlantic that no ship could load up, let alone carry. In the middle of a lake on an island off of Nova Scotia are petrified redwood trees standing up as if it just dropped. There are buildings at various places in the Atlantic Ocean; although most are found off shore, like even the one in India, if I recall correctly, then how can any of those buildings be found standing if such a global expansion event had happened? They would be laid flat, scattered as debris rather than just looking like that land dropped or slipped into the ocean.

There is even a strip of land underwater in the Gulf of Mexico trailing of petrified trees from the Yucatan towards Cuba that suggests a dropping in the ocean.

Now what I share next is speculation but...

The area of the Sahara Desert used to be a lush growing vegetation before something caused it to cease, maybe carried off by a huge tsunamis in the days of Peleg when the area of the Atlantic Ocean was filled in with water from the Pacific region in such a forceful way way that it came up on that land and carried off the top soil violently on its receding back to the new Ocean. Maybe science can figure out what direction it came from in filling up the Atlantic region, especially in that forceful manner but since it is at the equator and the area of the Panama Canal is such a narrow part of the western hemisphere, maybe that was how it came rushing over, spilling over the Sahara region? From the direction of the Panama, if that was where it came rushing in, then the force would just spill in that area of the Sahara while filling in that dropped region with its water. Then the sun at the equator did the rest in eroding the land of the Sahara into a desert and growing the desert to this day.

There is an ancient map found testifying to shipping routes by the currents of the ocean that had existed before Columbus sent sailing to discover America so obviously, contacting loved ones overseas was a too long a journey to warrant a continuous venture before it stopped altogether until it was forgotten that somebody decided to go the other way to search for another route to the Orients.

Well, anyway, I do thank you for sharing, but if Noah and his family had to go into the ark to escape the calamity of the flood, I am not sure how or why God would cause the expansion of the earth like that within the days of Peleg, let alone how mankind could survive a major calamity like that with buildings intact on land as standing up, let alone standing up like that in the ocean too. That is like earthquakes all over the place rather than a region of land dropped like that to cause a tsunamis to occur to fill in what is now the Atlantic Ocean.

And for such an event to occur for no reason why and no warning as to how, and certainly no promise from God that He would never do that again, it begs the video to answer what is sorely lacking in detail in the Bible.

The only way that can happen if it was an after effect of the global flood in forcing the waters of the deep that watered the whole earth out to add to the deluge, leaving that weight of the land of the Atlantic region over that area where the waters of the fountains of the deep used to be to eventually caused the land to collapsed in the days of Peleg, dividing the one land mass.

 

[Enow]

This is for all of you here that are capable of thinking outside of the box that you were told to stay in.

This 'my way or the highway' attitude has gotten us nowhere, and now time is running out.

It's okay to speculate outside of the box as I did in discerning with Him what we see and observe in the reality we are living in, but as in science, we do not leave the hypothesis alone once formulated and start treating it as a fact or truth as that cult does for the evolution theory. We are to prove or disprove the hypothesis.

We can see the craters on the moon and asteroid impacts on the earth has been found for how we can discerned why the fountains of the deep rose up and the moon started moving slowly away from the earth, which would allow for the first time that mist watering the whole earth. to rise up, condense into clouds, and rain for the first time at the global flood while rising the tides of the Pacific Ocean or wherever that place was where all the sea was at in one place where the one land mass was, .... well you get the rest from what we observe in nature to have found.

Since Gd judged the world by a global flood promising not to do anything like that on a global scale again, but yet warned of an impending calamity of fire that will judged the earth Luke 12:49 & 2 Peter 3:3-15 then alternate realities do not chime in when that judgment is on that earth in that reality we are in.

 

[Enow]

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.

Any speculation like that should be searched for to be confirmed or reproved by scripture. The reason for the search is obvious when in Genesis 1:26 says let us "make" man in our image and then in Genesis 1:27, only God did it?

So is there scripture to reprove this idea which shows discrepancy already?

Isaiah 40:13 Who hath directed the Spirit of the Lord, or being his counsellor hath taught him? 14 With whom took he counsel, and who instructed him, and taught him in the path of judgment, and taught him knowledge, and shewed to him the way of understanding?

So God wasn't talking to angels. God was talking to Another Person in that Godhead for when God performed the act as the One God in creating man in "Their image". I believe Jesus was the One that made the request and God the Father agreed and the Spirit did too for when the Word of God created man in His image. This also means that within the Godhead, the Father also has a celestial body as the Son did before Jesus was incarnated in becoming the prophesied Son of Man to give His life as a ransom for many.

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.

Genesis 2:4 starts the other topic about where all the generations of mankind had come from where Genesis 2:5 is proof that this is a rehashing of the event that took place on the 6th day, but in detail that leaves no room for other couples of mankind having been created along with Adam & Eve. The whole point of Adam naming Eve was because she really was the mother of all the living. That was why Cain was afraid of being a fugitive and a vagabond because every body else on earth was not only a relative to Cain but to Abel to seek revenge for him. That was why God protected him with the mark of Cain whereby he was able to take a wife, a relative of his and settle down to build a city to build a family there. It was until Israel became a nation was when it was forbidden to marry immediate family members since Abraham married Sara, his sister, of a different mother to his father.

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.

Yet when everything was good before the fall, God made man to have dominion over them; hence most forms of domestication must have been lost after the flood when the fear of man was put into animals because animals were also to serve as "meat" for man and not juts the herbs for meat after the flood.

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

The command was given before the fall when they were in the garden of Eden, and so the fall must have had happened after day 7 for when they were driven out of the Garden of Eden with no children for when they began to record the first child by union which was Cain.

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?

We all came from Adam and Eve just as surely everybody on the earth came from Noah and his family as the only 8 survivors of the global flood. If it wasn't for the lie of the evolution theory, if we all knew we are related to one another, would racism still exists? But then again, the sons of God, the lineage of godly Seth from which Israel's roots are traced back to is why the Jews were called the sons of God before the gospel came, John 1:12-13, and the sons of God mingled with other lineage from Adam not of godly Seth, for why that was to serve as a moral motivation not to marry outside the godly nation of Israel, and not just sharing the consequences for mingling outside that godly lineage, and that is to forget the godly practices in picking up the other ways of sinful man.

So mankind would probably still do evil to their relatives even if the lie of the evolution theory wasn't giving sinners lying excuses to hate one another just to do evil, because they can.

 

[APAK]

The fountains of the great deep burst I open causing the flood

the firmament broke up when this happened

it is called the earths crust

EG...I have an input into this discussion..I believe it would be worth your time reviewing it. It hits quite a bit about what you have already said on this thread and others as well....

Go to Center for Scientific Creation | In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood ...it is now an on-line book. I purchased the 7th hardcover edition with the CD about 18 years ago.

The author Walt Brown, ex-Army Colonel Christian and scholar has convinced me that 'his' Hydroplate theory (not all his own work as many have added to it over the many decades and more) is the 'best' and most compelling theory concerning how we have the continents and trenches in the oceans today and more..including our atmosphere. It is based on only ONE assumption basically, that the crust was under intense pressure at one time .....then the rest of the story unfolds as in scripture.

Happy reading.

Bless you,

APAK

 

[Eternally Grateful]

EG...I have an input into this discussion..I believe it would be worth your time reviewing it. It hits quite a bit about what you have already said on this thread and others as well....

Go to Center for Scientific Creation | In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood ...it is now an on-line book. I purchased the 7th hardcover edition with the CD about 18 years ago.

The author Walt Brown, ex-Army Colonel Christian and scholar has convinced me that 'his' Hydroplate theory (not all his own work as many have added to it over the many decades and more) is the 'best' and most compelling theory concerning how we have the continents and trenches in the oceans today and more..including our atmosphere. It is based on only ONE assumption basically, that the crust was under intense pressure at one time .....then the rest of the story unfolds as in scripture.

Happy reading.

Bless you,

APAK

This is great reading and This and the creation museum in Kentucky changed my view from being a OEC gap theorist to a YEC

 

[101G]

How do you explain the request for man to be made in "our" image and after "our" likeness, and this was specified that it was on the 6th day when God created man and woman?

thanks for a reasonable question. those I will answer. God's Image is "ANOTHER" which Adam the man is. and on day 6 the "ANOTHER" of Adam came.
just as Jesus the Christ is the "ANOTHER" of God, in Flesh, likewise, the woman Eve is "ANOTHER" of Adam in flesh. hence the IMAGE. lets see it clearly. the term Adam/Man in Genesis 1:26 is,
H120 אָדָם 'adam (aw-dawm') n-m.
ruddy i.e. a human being (an individual or the species, mankind, etc.).
[from H119]
KJV: X another, + hypocrite, + common sort, X low, man (mean, of low degree), person.
Root(s): H119

"ANOTHER" of God is his IMAGE, and Christ is his own "IMAGE" in flesh. Colossians 1:14 "In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:Colossians 1:15 "Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature".

the woman was not seen until DAY #6, when she was brought forth.

so the IMAGE of God is "ANOTHER" of himself in flesh. Just as the Woman is the Image of the Man in flesh.

the TERM "ANOTHER" in the Greek is G243 allos, which shows God "diversity" in flesh.

PICJAG

 

[Enoch111]

But then again, the sons of God, the lineage of godly Seth from which Israel's roots are traced back to is why the Jews were called the sons of God before the gospel came...

This is incorrect. The OT saints are never called "sons of God". But angels -- BECAUSE THEY ARE DIRECT CREATIONS OF GOD -- are called sons of God in the OT.

However, in the NT, the children of God through the New Birth are called sons of God (John 1:12,13). At the same time angels are always called angels in the NT, never sons of God.

Also, you should understand that the Bible itself shows us that godly fathers have produced evil sons, and evil fathers have produced godly sons. So this nonsense about "the lineage of godly Seth" is just that. Nonsense. Kindly read and study Kings and Chronicles.

 

[101G]

This is incorrect. The OT saints are never called "sons of God". But angels -- BECAUSE THEY ARE DIRECT CREATIONS OF GOD -- are called sons of God in the OT.

However, in the NT, the children of God through the New Birth are called sons of God (John 1:12,13). At the same time angels are always called angels in the NT, never sons of God.

Also, you should understand that the Bible itself shows us that godly fathers have produced evil sons, and evil fathers have produced godly sons. So this nonsense about "the lineage of godly Seth" is just that. Nonsense. Kindly read and study Kings and Chronicles.

Angels are never called sons of God. scripture, Hebrews 1:5 "For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son? Hebrews 1:6 "And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him".
in verse 5, any time covers Genesis to Revelation. angels are not sons of God.

correct, this so called "Godly" lineage of Seth is just that... so called, but not is. only the children Adam and Eve had in the Garden before the Fall into sin are called sons of God, Genesis 6. but we must take a step aback because Job was called a son of God, see Job 1:3.

PICJAG.

 

[Enow]

thanks for a reasonable question. those I will answer. God's Image is "ANOTHER" which Adam the man is. and on day 6 the "ANOTHER" of Adam came.
just as Jesus the Christ is the "ANOTHER" of God, in Flesh, likewise, the woman Eve is "ANOTHER" of Adam in flesh. hence the IMAGE. lets see it clearly. the term Adam/Man in Genesis 1:26 is,
H120 אָדָם 'adam (aw-dawm') n-m.
ruddy i.e. a human being (an individual or the species, mankind, etc.).
[from H119]
KJV: X another, + hypocrite, + common sort, X low, man (mean, of low degree), person.
Root(s): H119

"ANOTHER" of God is his IMAGE, and Christ is his own "IMAGE" in flesh. Colossians 1:14 "In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:Colossians 1:15 "Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature".

the woman was not seen until DAY #6, when she was brought forth.

so the IMAGE of God is "ANOTHER" of himself in flesh. Just as the Woman is the Image of the Man in flesh.

the TERM "ANOTHER" in the Greek is G243 allos, which shows God "diversity" in flesh.

PICJAG

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

 

[Enow]

This is incorrect. The OT saints are never called "sons of God". But angels -- BECAUSE THEY ARE DIRECT CREATIONS OF GOD -- are called sons of God in the OT.

In the 2 times that the sons of God presented themselves to the Lord with Satan being there, God singled out Job only because he was among the sons of God.

However, in the NT, the children of God through the New Birth are called sons of God (John 1:12,13). At the same time angels are always called angels in the NT, never sons of God.

That should tell you something. If the angels were never called sons of God in the N.T. then they were not the sons of God in the O.T.

Since you used John 1:12-13 in assigning who the sons of God now, that reference also testify to who the sons of God used to be by Judaism & bloodline.

John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: 13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

Luke 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.

Also, you should understand that the Bible itself shows us that godly fathers have produced evil sons, and evil fathers have produced godly sons.

So this nonsense about "the lineage of godly Seth" is just that. Nonsense. Kindly read and study Kings and Chronicles.

Just as godly nation of Israel has gone astray, so as the godly lineage of Seth whom had replaced Abel that Israel's family roots stems from.

The sons of God, of the godly lineage of Seth, departed from marrying within that godly lineage to mingling outside of that godly lineage to the daughters of men. Just as Israel mingled outside of the nation of Israel to their regrets in learning other gods and sinful practices that caused the nation to fall under judgment from time to time. Thing was, it got so bad in the days of Noah that only Noah and his family were abiding in that godly lineage & practices.

 

[Dcopymope]

Angels are never called sons of God. scripture, Hebrews 1:5 "For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son? Hebrews 1:6 "And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him".
in verse 5, any time covers Genesis to Revelation. angels are not sons of God.

correct, this so called "Godly" lineage of Seth is just that... so called, but not is. only the children Adam and Eve had in the Garden before the Fall into sin are called sons of God, Genesis 6. but we must take a step aback because Job was called a son of God, see Job 1:3.

PICJAG.

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. 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.

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.

 

[Enoch111]

In the 2 times that the sons of God presented themselves to the Lord with Satan being there, God singled out Job only because he was among the sons of God.

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

That should tell you something. If the angels were never called sons of God in the N.T. then they were not the sons of God in the O.T.

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)

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.

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.