Moriah's Song
Well-Known Member
And you are referring to what verses I ignored or misrepresented please?You have ignored the verses or misrepresented them.
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
And you are referring to what verses I ignored or misrepresented please?You have ignored the verses or misrepresented them.
And I showed you that no where else in the OT do we see bene elohim , or children of God used at all!. In the NT believers are called children of god for NT believers are adopted.
Yes God is god in both testaments, but how He deals with His people in differing times has varied greatly. Israel was under a theocracy, the church is not, to name just one of many differences.
Yes it would! but as you have failed to provide any empirical biblical evidence to say your assumption they are men, under than unsupported hypotheses, I will let the fact that the phrase "bene-elohim" means angels as it does the other 3 times it is used in the OT.
You OTOH require multiple suppositions in yo0ur hypotheses to support that bene elohim is some righteous line of Seth (like there were no unrigfhteous in Seth).
And can you show that worship is corrupted by marrying pretty women? Can you also shjow that marrying pretty women is a sin? Can you show that not onew of these women were daughters of Seth?
That is not the entirity of what the Lexicon says. However, it does say that it means "giants" though because the verse only says that "The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, AND ALSO AFTERWARDS, when the Sons of God came into the daughters of men, and they bore children to them." It does not say that the "Sons of God" came into "the daughters of giants or angels." If the text demanded the word "angels" there exited a Hebrew(?) word for that.*הַנְּפִלִ֞ים (han-nə-p̄i-lîm) = the Nephilim. Gesenius acknowledges that some interpret these as the offspring of "fallen angels".
And the scriptural proof of your "opinions" are what?....
Opinions are like "reeds blowing in the wind" meaning they are always unstable, most of the time untruthful and ususally unreliable. Only God's word in context is stable, truthful and reliable.
Didn't find the words "holy angels" anywhere in Job 38 nor does anything in verses 6,7 & 8 have anything to do with Gen. 6:4. As I said "opinions (not based on scripture) are like "reeds blowing in the wind."Job 38: ——> holy angels
[7] When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?
Again this verse has NO relation to Gen.6:4. These are verses in the NT that should shed some light on whether or not angels marry or not...1 John 3:——-> Converted men
[2] Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.
Didn't find the words "holy angels" anywhere in Job 38 nor does anything in verses 6,7 & 8 have anything to do with Gen. 6:4. As I said "opinions (not based on scripture) are like "reeds blowing in the wind."
6 Whereupon were 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,
Again this verse has NO relation to Gen.6:4. These are verses in the NT that should shed some light on whether or not angels marry or not...
Luk 20:34-36..."And Jesus said to them, "The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage; but those who are accounted worthy to attain to that age and to the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage, for they cannot die any more, because they are equal to angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection."
Did you know that DC Talk was also a Christian rock group?And as I'm saying, that argument doesn't hold water, any more than DC Talk has to refer to political conversation in Washington DC. Even if DC Talk *always* refers only to political conversation in Washington DC, the moment the same term is used in a different context indicates there is no static definition of the term. Words are flexible creatures, and they must be interpreted by how the user is using the term *in context!* I will not relent on this point. You absolutely have not made your case.
The stars are the angels created on day 4.Read, learn, study.
Job 38:
[7] When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?
Do you not know who the morning stars are, that were singing?
Do you not know who all the sons of God shouting were?
Do you not know why they were singing and shouting for joy?
Do you not know mankind had NOT been created yet?
The Words are in Scripture....Scriptural words.
Your words do not matter. Your lack of knowledge and understanding does not matter.
The PULPIT COMMENTARY has this....When the morning stars sang together
The stars are the angels created on day 4.
The sons of God are humans created on day 6.
The PULPIT COMMENTARY has this....
Verse 7. - When the morning stars sang together. The stars generally, or the actual stars visible on the morn of creation, are probably meant. They, as it were, sang a song of loud acclaim on witnessing the new marvel. Their priority to the earth is implied, since they witness its birth. Their song is, of course, that silent song of sympathy, whereof Shakespeare speaks when he says, "Each in its motion like an angel sings" ('Merchant of Venice,' act 5. sc. 1). And all the sons of God shouted for joy. "The sons of God" here must necessarily be the angels (see Job 1:6; Job 2:1), since there were no men as yet in existence. They too joined in the chorus of sympathy and admiration, perhaps lifting up their voices (Revelation 5:11, 12), perhaps their hearts only, praising the Creator, who had done such marvellous things. Job 38:7
God is challenging Job concerning the plan of the creation of the earth on which the human race would dwell. Genesis 6:4 is long after the creation of Adam and his descendants and just before the flood.
Bottom line still is the humans do not have sex with angels if that is what your position is.
Andyou are out of line. You can be reported for that degrading comment. Simply because you disagree with my saying "Bottom line still is the humans do not have sex with angels if that is what your position is." that does not give you the authority to determine that "I am without Spiritual understanding." It is clear that throughout the Bible that at various times and in various ways, God sends angels to mankind for a specific purpose....but in no instance in scripture does it ever say that mankind marries or has sex with angels.Bottom line, you show yourself to be without Spiritual understanding.
1- Giants are not angels.Gen 6:4 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.
Angels are messengers.1- Giants are not angels.
2- Sons of God are not angels.
3- Daughters of men are not angels.
You seem to skip over...."AND ALSO AFTER THAT....
Andyou are out of line. You can be reported for that degrading comment. Simply because you disagree with my saying "Bottom line still is the humans do not have sex with angels if that is what your position is." that does not give you the authority to determine that "I am without Spiritual understanding." It is clear that throughout the Bible that at various times and in various ways, God sends angels to mankind for a specific purpose....but in no instance in scripture does it ever say that mankind marries or has sex with angels.