The lies about gen 6

[BeyondET]

Cain and Abel both spoke to God, certainly not from some kind of darkness.
and in garden of Eden, where else was God but the garden

 

[Taken]

There is not a shred of evidence in Scripture, and in your post that the sons of God are angels.

So? Why would there be evidence in my post about sons of God being angels, when my post had nothing to do with that topic...

Stop corrupting God's Word with apostate church teachings.

Get a grip, focus, pay attention to the topic at hand!

 

[BeyondET]

No one is claiming Adam became an atheist. Adam was not dumb. Adam lost fellowship with God. Seth knew nothing about God. It was Enos who started calling out to God. About 6 generations later we have Noah, about the only righteous human on earth. So what happened besides sin getting the better of all parties? Any generation on earth can stop listening to the Holy Spirit. It would not take that long to plung the whole world into sin, nor turn the whole world back to righteousness. It is not a popularity contest.

Where is written that Adam and Eve were to remain silent about a creator God to their children, that's what I'm saying about some of things you say. No way Seth was ignorant of God.

 

[BeyondET]

The vast majority of names mentioned was probably spiritual. Certainly Adam and Eve had other children nothing said about them might of not believed who knows. Cain descendants went all modernized building city's. Musical instruments, forging all kinds of metals.

 

[Prim]

The sons of God were not sinners by birth, until they had sinful offspring. And it did not matter if it went both ways, and males from Seth's line procreated with the females created on the 6th day, the sons of God were in a glorified condition, soul, body, and spirit. Adam's offspring through Seth had a sin nature soul, and a physical body of sin and death, and no spirit, as they were spiritually dead, and no access to the Holy Spirit as far as we know. They had to purpose in their minds to not let sin keep them in bondage, like Noah purposed to be righteous despite his sin nature. The sons of God were perfect in all ways without a sinful nature nor a sin cursed body. So procreation, did not clean up Adam's fallen flesh. What it did was start to create rebellion in the offspring of the sons of God. Their holy spirit tied to God's divine glory was in direct opposition to who they were becoming. That is why God took Adam and Eve's spirit and left them spiritually dead. But these offspring were causing corruption in the spiritual aspect of who they were. They were literally demonizing their spirit with the sin nature of Seth's descendants. That is why each generation born became worse and worse. And not all those created on the 6th day did that. God removed the sons of God prior to the Flood and the same will happen at the Second Coming before the final harvest. The church will be removed before Jesus as King deals with the rest of humanity in judgment. Noah and the ark represent those sealed during this time of great tribulation who have to endure as the firstfruits of the Millennium.

Tim I not quite follow. You state the Sons of God were not sinners by birth until they had sinful offspring. You be referring to the angels there ? If so what about the angelic rebellion in heaven. Would they not have inherited sin in their rebellion with Lucifer. You than go on to to say ( But these offspring were causing corruption in the spiritual aspect of who they were. I’m guessing that your referring to the angelic-human offspring that were born here. You than go on to say ( that each generation born and became worse and worse. And not all those created on the 6th day did that ) Well only Adam and Eve along with the cattle, beasts and every creeping thing on the 6th day were created. Tim who are the others that were created on the 6th day that you mention ? You might have to explain to me more

 

[BeyondET]

Though I do find day six when man and woman was created a bit puzzling. Adam named the animals couldn't find a suitable helper then during his sleep he woke up on day seven with a wife huh...

 

[No Pre-TB]

"Satan" isn't a proper name anyways so you are contradicting your own point.

Youre correct, Satan is just the adversary. I’ve never said otherwise. No contradiction. Thank you for responding too, but I’m currently talking to 2 others on this. So the points arnt confused with their replies, I’ll only be discussing it with them atm.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Because the word “lucifer” is Latin from the Vulgate, that’s why. And it’s important to understand what the word means and how many times it was used.

Well as it is addressing a person it is a person.

The king of Babylon did not descend from heaven.

No, that’s not always true. If we take the name Sara, does every Sara in the Bible translate to laughter instead of Sara? No, it doesn’t. One, it’s based on context. Two, it’s based upon what is said. What’s the difference? What is said: My name is Sara, and that means laughter. We are given the meaning.
Instead: John was full of Sara. Incorrect. John was full of laughter.

In each writing with “lucifer”, the lower cases word and its context was always descriptive and not a proper name. The KJV is the only one that kept the original Latin word and capitalized it. The other “lucifer” words they changed. In medieval times, some began to say Satan had another name and this is how it started.

Christ, Paul and none of the 12 ever referred to Satan with a proper name ever. The Jews don’t even refer to that Isaiah passage as Satan. Thankfully, it has nothing to do with salvation. But I prefer truth and Id want everyone to know it as well.

There was a link to a source on the history of it. If you ever have time, please look into it, even if you still disagree. It’s really hard to argue against a word used multiple times and all its uses are never someone’s name.

You just repeated what I said. but Sarah is a name that is defined as laughter. and yes as I said context determinies if it means laughter or if it is a nemae.

That is why Is. 14 in its context is a name.

No Babylonian King except old nebuchad became a believer- and that was after his 7 year reing as an animal! So no this is not God calling a king of babylon a light bearer, son of the morning.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Once again, no proof the sons of God are angels. More apostate church teachings.

I have given you all the proof and thouroughly debunked your concept of these sons of God being another branch of humanity that is not related to Adam and Eve.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Noah was a direct descendant of Seth. Genesis 5.

And Setgh was born of Adam and Eve- dead corruptible flesh! Your point? If you have one?

You are the one who said the sons of god were a separate creation outside of Adam and Eve. and Seth is not one of them.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Um, Genesis proves angels appear as male. No where does it claim they become human flesh and blood. You are just adding imagination to God's Word.

Maybe, but it makes more sense than to say teh sons of God are a second whole branch of humanity apart from adam and eve.

At least I have the evidence of Philippians 2 where jesus emptied himself and took on a human body.

 

[No Pre-TB]

The king of Babylon did not descend from heaven.

Yes, he did. He as King is portrayed as a bright star in the heavens. The same in Revelation at the 6th seal and the 5th Trumpet.

Example: Stars, in the Scriptures, are symbols of princes and rulers (see Daniel 8:10; Revelation 8:10-11; Revelation 9:1); and the natural meaning of this symbol is, that there would be commotions which would unsettle princes, and bring them down from their thrones - like stars falling from the sky.

So no this is not God calling a king of babylon a light bearer, son of the morning.

Yes, it is.
Example: The use of the word, however, in mediæval Latin as a name of Satan, whose fall was supposed to be shadowed forth in this and the following verse, makes its selection here singularly unfortunate. Few English readers realise the fact that it is the king of Babylon, and not the devil, who is addressed as Lucifer.

Example: Lucifer is properly a bright star, that ushers in the morning; but is here metaphorically taken for the mighty king of Babylon, who outshone all the kings of the earth by his great splendour.

Example: It is that of the bright morning star; and a comparison of the once magnificent monarch with that beautiful star. He is now exhibited as having fallen from his place in the east to the earth. His glory is dimmed; his brightness quenched. Nothing can be more poetic and beautiful than a comparison of a magnificent monarch with the bright morning star!

Example: The language is so framed as to apply to the Babylonian king primarily, and at the same time to shadow forth through him, the great final enemy, the man of sin,

Example: Lucifer; which properly is a bright and eminent star, which ushers in the sun and the morning; but is here metaphorically taken for the high and mighty king of Babylon. And it is a very usual thing, both in prophetical and in profane writers, to describe the princes and potentates of the world under the title of the sun or stars of heaven.

Example: Vs. 12-15. The third strophe contains the prophet’s reflection on the sudden fall of the king of Babylon. That he should go to Sheol at all was a fate never contemplated by his soaring and self-deifying pride.

Example: It is singular, however, that among the Semitic nations the morning star is not personified as a male (Heōsphoros or Phōsphoros), but as a female (Astarte, see at Isaiah 17:8),…Lucifer, as a name given to the devil, was derived from this passage, which the fathers (and lately Stier) interpreted, without any warrant whatever, as relating to the apostasy and punishment of the angelic leaders. The appellation is a perfectly appropriate one for the king of Babel, on account of the early date of the Babylonian culture, which reached back as far as the grey twilight of primeval times, and also because of its predominant astrological character.

Do you want more?

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Demons are not angels either.

Demons are human spirits of reprobate souls. They all will be tossed into the LOF with the dead souls they are supposed to be a part of.

WOW! I can't wait to see your biblical evidence for this!

So human spirits can possess other people? You do know that is a teaching of spiritism and not the bible don't you? Madame Blavatsky and Pike and Alister Crowley would love to hear you say that. God? I don't think so.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Yes, he did. He as King is portrayed as a bright star in the heavens. The same in Revelation at the 6th seal and the 5th Trumpet.

Example: Stars, in the Scriptures, are symbols of princes and rulers (see Daniel 8:10; Revelation 8:10-11; Revelation 9:1); and the natural meaning of this symbol is, that there would be commotions which would unsettle princes, and bring them down from their thrones - like stars falling from the sky.

So you really believe that either Nebuchadnezzar or Belshazzar (as you theorized) were in heaven and came down and became the king of babylon?

So you believe that the genealogies of these pagan kings is false and the bible is mistaken to name their fathers and grandfathers?

Ok then. I think we have gone as far as we can go!

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Do you want more?

Don't need more. YOu draw conclusions based on faulty assumptions of the language! Just because it is poetic does not make it metasphoric at all!

Genesis 1 is poetic and it literal truth.

And the King is a man and no man descended from heaven.

 

[No Pre-TB]

Don't need more. YOu draw conclusions based on faulty assumptions of the language! Just because it is poetic does not make it metasphoric at all!

Genesis 1 is poetic and it literal truth.

And the King is a man and no man descended from heaven.

You still don’t get it. Poetic language doesn’t mean the King actually went into God’s throne. Heaven is the sky and the idea is, if you read anything I posted, the king, as a bright star which hangs in the heavens and is elevated above all on the earth is the idea. Those who lift themselves up will be cast down.

How did the horn in Daniel 8:10 cast stars to the ground? How did he go to heaven to do it? According to you, it isn’t possible.

 

[Helen]

Can angels be married and have sex?

Don’t ask stupid questions.

as my old mum used to say …” Ask a stupid question and you’ll get a stupid answer “.

 

[No Pre-TB]

Don’t ask stupid questions.

as my old mum used to say …” Ask a stupid question and you’ll get a stupid answer “.

Is that what Christ taught you? I don’t know. I tend to think we are to be apt. To teach, patient in all things, always searching for truth and ready to give examples to anyone that asks. I hope if an unsaved individual asks that question, because they may be ignorant, that we can provide scriptural truth.

 

[Timtofly]

The earth is the earth it wasn't some kind of fantasy land where no plants died decayed and turn to dirt. clearly God used the dirt did not create dirt that is a byproduct of life on earth.

You are still trying to project current nature under the bondage of sin, back onto the week of creation. God's creation does not work that way.

 

[Timtofly]

Now you want to depute that they were not actually calling on the Lord, only to fit a narrative. That's when the idea kind of looses steam when debating what is actually said in the verse, back to the reasoning board.

Adam and Eve were banned from God's presence. That would be a place to start.