A Genesis debate re.

[kenisyes]

Lot, Noah, flood, Sodom All connect to the point God knows how to deliver the Godly - they were spared, the wicked were not.

The Angels make the point God knows how to reserve the wicked until Judgment. - the angels are held waiting to be punished.

I agree the passages are connected by judgment. The fallen angels are reserved FOR judgment since they are unjust, Noah and Lot are reserved FROM judgment because they are just. That still divides the passage angels: Noah, Lot. Not angels,Noah: Lot. The division is the issue since this is what Peter actually did when he wrote it.

 

[Abiding]

true.....

 

[willfollowsGod]

That chapter in Genesis I was gung-ho for a long time. I got so obsessed with it, that I had to stop talking about it, until I finally calmed down. I believe that the sons of God spoken of are angels because many times in the Old Testament, sons of God is always angels.
Job 1:6
One day the angels (footnote Hebrew the sons of God) came to present themselves before the Lord.

There are other verses like this that I can't think of off the top of my head.

Even many of the Jewish scholars believe that the sons of God are angels. But people tend to have a problem with because they say that angels cannot procreate and use a chapter in Matthew to support that position. But that is talking about angels who follow God and are in heaven, therefore the procreation cannot happen. In this case, these angels rebelled against God and went after strange flesh. Jude talks about this.
Jude 1:6-7
And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their own home---these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day. In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.
So does Peter.
2 Peter 2:4
For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell (Greek Tartarus), putting them into gloomy dungeons (or chains of darkness) to be held for judgment.
My question if the sons of God mentioned in Genesis 6 are not angels then why the comparison between angels going after women and the sexual sin of Sodom and Gomorrah. The other views do not seem to answer that question.
Also, the Hebrew for sons of God is Bene Elohim but the Hebrew for the daughters of men is Benoth Adam, which can translate into daughters of Adam. In that chapter, no sons of Adam are mentioned.
Now, just because this occurs, does not mean that humankind was not also sinning besides the fallen angels taking advantage of women producing Nephilim before the flood. The Nephilim are mentioned after the flood also, which connects to a chapter in Numbers and other references.
Genesis 6:4
The Nephilim (Hebrew- Fallen Ones) were on the earth in those days---and also afterward---when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.
The Ha Gibborim are the mighty ones in Hebrew.
God bless and may we keep on learning and hopefully on our life time on earth understand these verses, if not we will get it answered when we get to heaven. Amen.

 

[feedm3]

Lot, Noah, flood, Sodom All connect to the point God knows how to deliver the Godly - they were spared, the wicked were not.

The Angels make the point God knows how to reserve the wicked until Judgment. - the angels are held waiting to be punished.

I agree the passages are connected by judgment. The fallen angels are reserved FOR judgment since they are unjust, Noah and Lot are reserved FROM judgment because they are just. That still divides the passage angels: Noah, Lot. Not angels,Noah: Lot. The division is the issue since this is what Peter actually did when he wrote it.

I didn't know there was an issue, I just realized we may be arguing I didn't know - lol. Still don't know what we're actually disagreeing on. The way I said Noah Angela lot? Okay the wicked in the flood, the wicked in sodom, and the angles not spared reserved for judgment - better? I'm typing this from my phone hope it comes out right - thanks

 

[gracethroughfaith]

feedm3:
You are very correct about the example God gives us about the angles who sinned, the flood of Noah's day and Sodom and Gomorrah.

Thank you for your support on this subject. We must alway let God's Word interpret itself!

If WE choose to interpret scripture of our own understanding rather than let scripture interpret itself, we are guilty of private interpretation.

2 Peter 1:20 (KJV)
20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

To add to my earlier post showing scripture proving scripture, as to who the sons of God are and who they are NOT, I am adding a passage here that give us another example of the sons of God.

We see they are presenting themselves before God in this passage. Just as we see it stated in Job 1:6, 2:1 & 38:7

Joshua 24:1 (KJV)
1 And Joshua gathered all the tribes of Israel to Shechem, and called for the elders of Israel, and for their heads, and for their judges, and for their officers; and they presented themselves before God.

Job 1:6, 2:1:
We see Satan was among the sons of God at the time they came before God. Is Satan not among us today? You bet he is. God even give us example in scripure. Lets take a look.

1 Peter 5:8 (KJV)
8 Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour:

Luke 8:11-12 (KJV)
11 Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God.
12 Those by the way side are they that hear; then cometh the devil, and taketh away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved.

James 4:7 (KJV)
7 Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you.



So: we see here the devil is among us all the time.

Please remember, if we place our thoughts about what God said above his thoughts and what he had written for our lerning. We will find ourselves taking from or adding to his word, and we all know the warning God give to those who do such things.


Revelation 22:18-19 (KJV)
18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

One last thing; if devils have not the power to even open the eyes of the blind, why would we think they would have power to genetically alter our body.
They can cause us to do things by entering into our heart and deceive us but thats about it.

John 10:21 (KJV)
21 Others said, These are not the words of him that hath a devil. Can a devil open the eyes of the blind?



Hebrews 1:5 (KJV)
5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son,

 

[kenisyes]

I didn't know there was an issue, I just realized we may be arguing I didn't know - lol. Still don't know what we're actually disagreeing on. The way I said Noah Angela lot? Okay the wicked in the flood, the wicked in sodom, and the angles not spared reserved for judgment - better? I'm typing this from my phone hope it comes out right - thanks

My apologies if you misunderstood my intention. I use the word "issue" whether we are arguing or not. I am highly trained in mathematics, where every new advancement is summarized in an "argument", which is a technical term for expression of why we think something is a certain way.

I am here because I hope to learn the Word of God more accurately. Because I have been studying it for many years, I often get interested in very small details, all of which I feel, are insights into the personality of Jesus, who I would like to get as close to as possible.

So, when I use the word "issue", I mean only "point yet to be clarified to my satisfaction". The "issue" is whether Peter associates the angels with the flood apart from Lot or not.

If I understand you correctly, you feel that all three are introduced to demonstrate that God can save the righteous from whatever may be coming for the wicked. While I agree with that statement, I think this particular verse may indicate something else.

I feel that Peter thought of the flood because he thought of the angels. Then, he thought of Lot because he thought of the flood. Then, thinking of Lot and the flood reminded him of the principle that God saves the righteous.

I think you mean to say that Peter thought of God's mercy first, and so he started with the angels to get to both Noah and Lot. It is a very small distinction, and pretty much irrelevant.

However, Peter was trained by the same Jesus (my best friend) who also wept over doomed Jerusalem. If Jesus taught Peter to think of destruction first, then salvation, I would like to know this. If Jesus taught Peter to think of destruction within the framework of salvation, I would like to know this also.

In terms of common usage, I'm not arguing, I'm trying to clarify. Thanks for the reminder that most people use the word differently than I do. Do you agree with my statement of your position? Do you have any insights that might be helpful to me?

 

[feedm3]

My apologies if you misunderstood my intention. I use the word "issue" whether we are arguing or not. I am highly trained in mathematics, where every new advancement is summarized in an "argument", which is a technical term for expression of why we think something is a certain way.

I am here because I hope to learn the Word of God more accurately. Because I have been studying it for many years, I often get interested in very small details, all of which I feel, are insights into the personality of Jesus, who I would like to get as close to as possible.

So, when I use the word "issue", I mean only "point yet to be clarified to my satisfaction". The "issue" is whether Peter associates the angels with the flood apart from Lot or not.

If I understand you correctly, you feel that all three are introduced to demonstrate that God can save the righteous from whatever may be coming for the wicked. While I agree with that statement, I think this particular verse may indicate something else.

I feel that Peter thought of the flood because he thought of the angels. Then, he thought of Lot because he thought of the flood. Then, thinking of Lot and the flood reminded him of the principle that God saves the righteous.

I think you mean to say that Peter thought of God's mercy first, and so he started with the angels to get to both Noah and Lot. It is a very small distinction, and pretty much irrelevant.

However, Peter was trained by the same Jesus (my best friend) who also wept over doomed Jerusalem. If Jesus taught Peter to think of destruction first, then salvation, I would like to know this. If Jesus taught Peter to think of destruction within the framework of salvation, I would like to know this also.

In terms of common usage, I'm not arguing, I'm trying to clarify. Thanks for the reminder that most people use the word differently than I do. Do you agree with my statement of your position? Do you have any insights that might be helpful to me?

No insights at the moment. Thanks for clarifying though. I think you see my position well. I was just saying I think it's dealing with those who were delivered, and those who are reserved for Judgement.

I think those who drowned in the flood, and died in Sodom, are in prison as well as the angels awaiting judgment, or at least that's what I get from I Pet 3:19. This is something I am studying though, so I am not 100% on that.

 

[kenisyes]

No insights at the moment. Thanks for clarifying though. I think you see my position well. I was just saying I think it's dealing with those who were delivered, and those who are reserved for Judgement.

I think those who drowned in the flood, and died in Sodom, are in prison as well as the angels awaiting judgment, or at least that's what I get from I Pet 3:19. This is something I am studying though, so I am not 100% on that.

I think that is likely as well. I think hell as a holding tank for those who die without Jesus is large enough to hold both. I don't think they are in the same "room", but I think that is the place. As afar as using our earthly understanding of "place", that is another issue.

 

[RickShafer]

'5. You invert a charge by hooking your condenser up the opposite way. You move wire a to point b and wire b to point a. That makes your negative pole positive and vice-versa. If you leave it long enough, the charge inverts, and the new static charge held by the condenser goes the opposite way. It's true, you don't actually invert the same charge. The old one is replaced gradually by the new. Lightning is not static charge, it is the release of static charge, which is why it can be collected in a Leyden jar (as Ben Franklin did to a small portion of it), and forms again as a static charge in the jar.'

Only if the dielectric is substantial enough the store the charge.
Which is why we aren't able to harness lightning.

 

[kenisyes]

'5. You invert a charge by hooking your condenser up the opposite way. You move wire a to point b and wire b to point a. That makes your negative pole positive and vice-versa. If you leave it long enough, the charge inverts, and the new static charge held by the condenser goes the opposite way. It's true, you don't actually invert the same charge. The old one is replaced gradually by the new. Lightning is not static charge, it is the release of static charge, which is why it can be collected in a Leyden jar (as Ben Franklin did to a small portion of it), and forms again as a static charge in the jar.'

Only if the dielectric is substantial enough the store the charge.
Which is why we aren't able to harness lightning.

The theory I have is that the condenser was two parallel streams of water laced with dust from crushed metal, separated by earth containing quartz. I do not know order of magnitude of the dielectric constants, do you? Best info is a 186 ft. resonance length, so the streams would be 186ft. or 372 ft. apart. I cannot give you percentages of metal in the water, or of quartz in the earth. Streams were dug by hand, prob. 6 ft. or 10 ft. deep, although as I recall my electrical theory, that does not matter. They were 1/2 mile long, and a 2 mile drainage channel for charged water is mentioned, with a danger sign posted.

 

[webchatter]

If we continue to fall,why can't the angels still fall ? Are they made perfect forever ? There is another instance in the Bible where angels are having "relationships".(don't remember where). Maybe they didn't come to earth as fallen angels but succumbed to the beauty of the women. Would they be allowed back in heaven? or are they like God's robots?

 

[RickShafer]

The theory I have is that the condenser was two parallel streams of water laced with dust from crushed metal, separated by earth containing quartz. I do not know order of magnitude of the dielectric constants, do you? Best info is a 186 ft. resonance length, so the streams would be 186ft. or 372 ft. apart. I cannot give you percentages of metal in the water, or of quartz in the earth. Streams were dug by hand, prob. 6 ft. or 10 ft. deep, although as I recall my electrical theory, that does not matter. They were 1/2 mile long, and a 2 mile drainage channel for charged water is mentioned, with a danger sign posted.

Interesting.
Has anyone tried it in modern times?

 

[kenisyes]

Webchatter, angels are spirits, so they are not time based. They don't have a tomorrow, only a today. If they fall, that's it; they can't get back up like we can. We will not be able to fall, or to get back up after we are dead, and no longer have bodies, either. That is why it is so important that we turn to Jesus in this life.

You would have to find the passage where angels have relationships. I cannot imagine them having relationships with a physical component. that's what we'd have to look for in the passage and surrounding context.

 

[kenisyes]

The theory I have is that the condenser was two parallel streams of water laced with dust from crushed metal, separated by earth containing quartz. I do not know order of magnitude of the dielectric constants, do you? Best info is a 186 ft. resonance length, so the streams would be 186ft. or 372 ft. apart. I cannot give you percentages of metal in the water, or of quartz in the earth. Streams were dug by hand, prob. 6 ft. or 10 ft. deep, although as I recall my electrical theory, that does not matter. They were 1/2 mile long, and a 2 mile drainage channel for charged water is mentioned, with a danger sign posted.

Interesting.
Has anyone tried it in modern times?

Tesla used the 186 foot resonant length, and his designs had some similarities. Like we said, he lacked the voltage to boot up. Assuming the dielectric constants and length are compatible, we are talking about a lot of inefficiency in charge up. I figured a generation to get fully charged waiting for the first lightning to "prime" the system, and subsequent storms to build up sufficient voltage to charge a storm.

 

[angelofmercy]

Webchatter, angels are spirits, so they are not time based. They don't have a tomorrow, only a today. If they fall, that's it; they can't get back up like we can. We will not be able to fall, or to get back up after we are dead, and no longer have bodies, either. That is why it is so important that we turn to Jesus in this life.

You would have to find the passage where angels have relationships. I cannot imagine them having relationships with a physical component. that's what we'd have to look for in the passage and surrounding context.

Why continue to believe that salvation is limited by the flesh?

 

[RickShafer]

'Tesla used the 186 foot resonant length, and his designs had some similarities. Like we said, he lacked the voltage to boot up. Assuming the dielectric constants and length are compatible, we are talking about a lot of inefficiency in charge up. I figured a generation to get fully charged waiting for the first lightning to "prime" the system, and subsequent storms to build up sufficient voltage to charge a storm.'

Yea, can you imagine the power supply it would take to amp that system up?

 

[RickShafer]

Lightening would probably strike the power supply instead!

 

[kenisyes]

Why continue to believe that salvation is limited by the flesh?

Repetition of the opportunity is what is limited to the flesh. You or I can choose to repent of sin, and thus "re-choose" Jesus over our sin. An angel can only choose once.

 

[kenisyes]

Lightening would probably strike the power supply instead!

That would have been Tesla's problem. In the old system, lightning is the power supply, stored in the condenser. It's voltage more than amperage from how I read the texts. But I could be wrong.

 

[ChurchLover]

6 Now it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them, 2 that the sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves of all whom they chose.


Some say the Sons of God in verse 2 is referring to fallen angels. Some say it's line of Seth. What do you say?... I'll comment my position through-out the comments

I think they are the Fallen Angels