No they did not: "sons of God refers to those who followed the Lord, and "daughters of men" refers to those following the sinful ways of man. The Lord God is
not going to allow someone to be born who is
automatically damned simply because of something they cannot control: their lineage. As for Genesis 6's statement:
"The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown." (Genesis 6:4 NASB, emphasis mine)
The "nephilim" ("giants") being in the land
had nothing to do with the children being born to the sons of God and the daughters of Men; the emphasis here is
the children born to the men and women were "men of reknown". This passage is simply describing that there happened to be giants around during the time that these women were producing prodigy that went on to be great.
Once again, they did not (as I have previously mentioned); that is
your assumption, which is apparently based off of committing gross eisegesis
and reading your opinion into Scripture. Frankly, you seem to have a
very unhealthy obsession with sex in eternity, given your previous posts. Your posts assume much that is not in Scripture, and before you try the "left their first estates" argument,
let me shoot that down:
"Now I desire to remind you, though you know all things once for all, that the Lord, after saving a people out of the land of Egypt, subsequently destroyed those who did not believe. And angels who did not keep their own domain, but abandoned their proper abode, He has kept in eternal bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day, just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire. Yet in the same way these men, also by dreaming, defile the flesh, and reject authority, and revile angelic majesties. But Michael the archangel, when he disputed with the devil and argued about the body of Moses, did not dare pronounce against him a railing judgment, but said, “The Lord rebuke you!” (Jude 1:5-10, NASB, emphasis mine)
"Yet in the same way"
does not mean that "they engaged in sex like the angels did"; it means
as the angels left their assigned duties and joined Lucifer in his rebellion, Sodom and Gomorrah also rebelled against the Lord. Their sin was different,
but the spirit of defying God's order and following their own wills was the same.
The Lord was already pretty explicit that we would "be as the angels, which neither give nor are given in marriage"; since sex is only supposed to take place within the protected confines of marriage, I believe the Lord's point is
clearly made here. Yet you keep railing against it, apparently hoping that if you "find the right
point or
argument, you'll get the answer you want".
GOD'S WORD DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY.
Concerning your complaint of "Why are Christians so negative on sex?": it is not "negative", but
protective. Sex is
supposed to be within the safety and confines of marriage, where intimacy can be
safely enjoyed and displayed
without the depravity and harm of the slavering wolves that hunt about trying to slake their carnal desires.
As for your cry of "Why did GOD put the Song of Solomon in the bible?"; the Lord wanted to show a look of the growth, joy, and maturation of love between a man and woman
in a proper way. It is a
love poem, and needs to be read as such,
but it is does not cancel out what the Lord taught in the book of Matthew.
Since this topic took the path it is now on, the way you come off is
pretty disturbing, given that 1
it has nothing to do with "being beaten in heaven", and 2)
do you really consider this an appropriate topic for discussion on a Christian board, when Scripture commands us to:
"Flee immorality. Every other sin that a man commits is outside the body, but the immoral man sins against his own body. Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own? For you have been bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body. " (1 Corinthians 6:18-20, NASB, emphasis mine)
Your comments in the last several posts you put up come across like
you're 16 with raging hormones, sir; I would not blame the ladies in this discussion
one bit if they were
becoming uncomfortable with your demeanor and lack of tact. On that note: if you complain about the "view" that "we Christians" have about sex (that makes me wonder: what are YOU then?"), then keep this in mind:
If someone throws a fit because you set boundaries, it is even more evidence that those boundaries are needed.
GOD DOESN'T PLAY GAMES; HE HAS HIS RULES IN PLACE FOR A REASON.
And with that, congratulations:
you just managed to make it onto my ignore list. I know you or someone else will probably post a "laugh emoji" or something to be "cute": I have that blocked via my ad blocker
so I will never see it. I don't give
mockery an avenue to affect me.
Goodbye.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now to other replies:
It's all just
rationalization on his part. All too often, those enthralled with sin will attempt to perform
incredible acts of hermeneutical gymnastics (often to a
ridiculous degree) to attempt to gain approval for something they want but
know is worldly and sinful. And when they also rail against the clear teaching of the Bible and attempt to twist it to suit their twisted agendas, you know they aren't operating within the will of the Lord.
I strongly suspect this
entire topic was constructed for the
sole purpose of getting to this point. Apparently, the OP got to the point about "being beaten" (losing rewards in his opinion), and then felt they established that and diverted to the true purpose of their topic, A.K.A. a
stealth topic if you will.
I really feel this thread needs to be
shut down; also, I advise
considerable caution in the future should anyone seek to engage the OP in further "biblical discussions", given their propensity for
not handling the word appropriately.
YBIC,
-Sojo414
1
