As in the days of Noah... ALL flesh had CORRUPTED itself

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
ChristRoseFromTheDead said:
You're making the assumption based on nothing that that verse is referring to angels. It's far more sensible and scriptural to believe that is referring to Adam's sons who called upon the name of YHWH in faith, as it has always been throughout the millennia. The book of Job in the LXX does not call the angels who appear before the throne of God, sons of God, like the Masoretic Text does.
Click to expand...
You said it didn’t contain “sons of God”.

I proved your statement as false.

Why do you guys constantly refuse to believe the Word as written?

Read the first couple of pages of this thread to see the absolutely conclusive proof that angels mated with human women, producing Nephilim.
 
PennEd said:
You said it didn’t contain “sons of God”.

I proved your statement as false.

Why do you guys constantly refuse to believe the Word as written?

Read the first couple of pages of this thread to see the absolutely conclusive proof that angels mated with human women, producing Nephilim.
Click to expand...

You just inserted “angels”. Who’s not following scripture again?…
 
The Creation, itself, is bound to decay. The Kingdom to come will be living.
 
.
Shepherd said:
[Genesis 6] There's that word "generations" again". So, how can a man be absolutely "perfect" in his "generations"? Well, he can...
Click to expand...
Wrong premise.

generations = descent; (to show) lineage.

"Perfect" means "without spot, without blemish, undefiled." It does NOT refer to sinlessness or behaviour.

In short, that verse is NOT addressing Noah's behaviour; it's a straightforward statement about his generations. "Perfect" is a word that describes the status of his relatives i.e. his genetic line.

Noah was chosen for his pure bloodline - not for his behaviour.

Learn the lessons. Food tampering, GMO's, bloodline tampering, DNA, cloning, transhumanism. The days of Noah are about to repeat. But no flood; this time it will be fire. (Zep. 3:8).

Depends on what bible you read.
Click to expand...
You got that right.

In the Septuagint (LXX) they are never called sons of God.
Click to expand...
The Septuagint (LXX) is a very corrupt Greek edition of the Old Testament created by Origen in the first centuries after Christ, not before. See the bibliography in any current printed edition. They admit that the Greek text used was the Old Testament of the corrupt Vaticanus (4th century A.D.) and ]i]Alexandrinus[/i] (5th century A.D.) manuscripts. Origen made his New Testament quotes match his Old Testament quotes.Therefore, the uninformed often wrongly say that, ‘Jesus quoted the Septuagint.’ It was not used by Jesus or the apostles. The Hebrews would not allow a Greek into the temple (see Acts 21:28), how much less a “polluted” Greek version of their Holy Hebrew scriptures.

Even the edition of The Septuagint marketed today points out in its preface that the stories surrounding its B.C. creation and existence are fables. All of the LXX manuscripts cited in its concordance were written after A.D. 200. The Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics elaborates calling "the Letter of the pseudoAristeas, a manifest forgery and the fragments of Aristobulus, which have also been highly suspect." The existence of an entire Greek Old Testament predating the life of Christ has no extant documentation. In fact, only scraps containing a few Old Testament chapters in Greek have ever been found. 'Alexandrianism' is evident throughout Origen's 'Septuagint'.

The Septuagint (LXX) cannot be the word of God for several other reasons:

1. It contains apocryphal books such as Tobit, The Prayer of Manasses, Second Esdras, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Bamck, I and II Maccabee; there are also additions to Esther and Daniel. Jesus never quoted the Apocrypha and the Jews rejected it also.

2. The "fable" of its origin states that it was written under orders of the king of Egypt (Ptolemy) around 250 B.C. by 72 Jews. The word Septuagint, however, means 70. The "fable" further states that six Jews from each of the twelve tribes wrote it. However, only the tribe of Levi were permitted by God to write the scriptures (I Chronicles 16:4).

3. Any Jew living in or returning to Egypt was in direct disobedience to God's command in Deuteronomy 17:16. "But he shall not. . .cause the people to return to Egypt forasmuch as the LORD hath said unto you. Ye shall henceforth return no more that way."

4. Origen's six column Old Testament, the Hexapla. parallels O.T. versions by Theodotian, Symmachus, and Aquilla, all three Gnostic occultists.

Getting back to the offspring of the fallen angels aka giants:

In the Holy Bible, 32 tribes of giants are mentioned (if you include the Nephilim who were the original giants and the Canaanites which technically includes multiple tribes). Note that some of these names are actually referring to the same tribes but I am including aliases because this is a list of terms in order to calculate the number of total references:

The Amalekites, Amorites, Anakim, Ashdodites, Ashkelonites (Eshkalonites), Avvim, Avites, Canaanites, Caphtorim, Ekronites, Emim (Emins), Gazites (Gazathites), Geshurites , Gibalites (Giblites), Gibeonites, Girgashites, Gittites, Hittites, Hivites, Horites (Horims), Jebusites, Kadmonites, Kenites, Kenizzites, Maacathites, Manassites, Nephilim, Perizzites, Philistines, Rephaim, Sidonians, Zamzummim, and Zuzim.

Amalekites are mentioned 25 times
Amorites are mentioned 87 times
Anakim are mentioned 9 times
Ashdodites are mentioned 4 times
Ashkelonites (Eshkalonites) are mentioned 1 time
Avvim are mentioned 3 times
Canaanites are mentioned 21 times but not all Canaanites peoples were giants
Caphtorim are mentioned 2 times
Ekronites are mentioned 2 times
Emim (aka Emins) are mentioned 3 times
Gazites (Gazathites) are mentioned 2 times
Geshurites are mentioned 6 times
Gibeonites are mentioned 8 times
Gibalites (Giblites) are mentioned 2 times
Girgashites are mentioned 7 times
Gittites are mentioned 10 times
Hittites are mentioned 48 times
Hivites are mentioned 25 times
Horites (Horims) are mentioned 7 times
Jebusites are mentioned 41 times
Kadmonites are mentioned 1 time
Kenites are mentioned 11 times
Kenizzites are mentioned 4 times
Maacathites are mentioned 8 times
Manassites are mentioned 4 times
Nephilim are mentioned 2 times
Perizzites are mentioned 23 times
Philistines are mentioned 290 times but many Philistines were not giants.
Rephaim are mentioned 18 times
Sidonians are mentioned 16 times
Zamzummim are mentioned 1 time
Zuzim are mentioned 1 time

That is a total of 688 mentions of tribes, people groups, or nations of (or containing) giants.

There are 19 giants that are named specifically in the Holy Bible:

Adoni-zedek (aka Adonizedek, Adonizedec), King of Jerusalem, is mentioned 2 times
Agag, King of the Amalakites, is mentioned 8 times
Ahiman (anakim) is mentioned 4 times
Amalek is mentioned 24 times
Arba is mentioned 3 times
Gog is mentioned 11 times
Magog is mentioned 5 times
Goliath is mentioned 6 times
Hoham, King of Hebron, is mentioned 1 time
Horam, King of Gezer, is mentioned 1 time
Jabin, King of Hazor, is mentioned 7 times
Jobab, King of Madon, is mentioned 9 times
Lahmi is mentioned 1 time
Nimrod is mentioned 4 times
Og of Bashan is mentioned 22 times
Sheshai (anakim) is mentioned 3 times
Sihon, King of the Amorites, is mentioned 39
Sippai is mentioned 1 time
Talmai (anakim) is mentioned 6 times

That is a total of 157 mentions of specific giants.

688 + 157 = 845 total references to individual giants, tribes, and people groups that included or were associated with giants in the Holy Bible.

The fallen ones (Nephilim) mated with earthly women, who produced rather large offspring (giants). These giants then mated with everything, including animals (recall the Greek half-man, half-beast legends); they were also cannibalistic and many had six fingers and six toes; some had two rows of teeth.
Click to expand...
For example, 2 Sam. 21:20.
.
 
Aaron56 said:
Imagine cheering the "genetically pure" person when it is written "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God and and what is perishable is not going to inherit what is imperishable".

Is the above post originating from Germany or from a German Baptist?

This belongs in the "Conspiracy" forum.
Click to expand...
PennEd I agree with Aaron on this one your theory of the nephilim is all little out there. It lacks evidence and is not supported by more than 3 verses in the bible. The rest is assumptions. The end reasoning is who could be saved if we are all inherently evil?
 
WiselyWoven said:
.

Wrong premise.

generations = descent; (to show) lineage.

"Perfect" means "without spot, without blemish, undefiled." It does NOT refer to sinlessness or behaviour.

In short, that verse is NOT addressing Noah's behaviour; it's a straightforward statement about his generations. "Perfect" is a word that describes the status of his relatives i.e. his genetic line.

Noah was chosen for his pure bloodline - not for his behaviour.

Learn the lessons. Food tampering, GMO's, bloodline tampering, DNA, cloning, transhumanism. The days of Noah are about to repeat. But no flood; this time it will be fire. (Zep. 3:8).


You got that right.


The Septuagint (LXX) is a very corrupt Greek edition of the Old Testament created by Origen in the first centuries after Christ, not before. See the bibliography in any current printed edition. They admit that the Greek text used was the Old Testament of the corrupt Vaticanus (4th century A.D.) and ]i]Alexandrinus[/i] (5th century A.D.) manuscripts. Origen made his New Testament quotes match his Old Testament quotes.Therefore, the uninformed often wrongly say that, ‘Jesus quoted the Septuagint.’ It was not used by Jesus or the apostles. The Hebrews would not allow a Greek into the temple (see Acts 21:28), how much less a “polluted” Greek version of their Holy Hebrew scriptures.


.
Click to expand...

You did not quote your sources.

The Septuagint was translated in the 3rd and 2nd century BC.

Biblical scholars agree that the first five books of the Hebrew Bible were translated from Biblical Hebrew into Koine Greek by Jews living in the Ptolemaic Kingdom, centered on the large community in Alexandria, probably in the early or middle part of the 3rd century BC.[8] The remaining books were presumably translated in the 2nd century BC.[4][9][10] Some targums translating or paraphrasing the Bible into Aramaic were also made during the Second Temple period.[11]

Few people could speak and even fewer could read in the Hebrew language during the Second Temple period; Koine Greek[3][12][13][14] and Aramaic were the lingua francas at that time among the Jewish community. The Septuagint, therefore, satisfied a need in the Jewish community. (wiki.Septuagint)

Origen did not translate the Septuagint.

Where are you getting your information from?
 
.
Inquisitor said:
You did not quote your sources.
Click to expand...
I shouldn't have to. For one who would attempt to foist the Septuagint on us, he would already be aware of its corrupted Origen origin.

No, Jesus did not read from any Septuagint (there are several differing "versions"). He used an Aramaic form of the Hebrew scriptures. There are commentaries on the Hebrew scriptures in Aramaic from the period. It is easy to think that Jesus used the Septuagint, but it isn't likely for Aramaic-speaking Jews who lived in Judea and had a preference for Aramaic.

For example, from The Septuagint Version of the Old Testament:

"The history of the origin of this translation was embellished with various fables at so early a period, that it has been a work of patient critical research in later times to bring into plain light the facts which may be regarded as well authenticated." - Introduction, page 1, 2nd paragraph

...which means:

The early accounts surrounding the creation of the Septuagint translation were filled with fictional stories, so later scholars had to carefully investigate and analyze the information to determine the true, verifiable facts about its origin.

“But ye [priests] are departed out of the way; ye have caused many to stumble at the law; ye have corrupted the covenant of Levi, saith the LORD of hosts.” (Mal. 2:8).

Time to move on from the "Septuagint" slide and get back on track with the OP:
As in the days of Noah... ALL flesh had CORRUPTED itself
.
 
.
Most Septuagint devotees are not well-read on the subject.

Inquisitor said:
Origen did not translate the Septuagint.
Click to expand...
Origen's Hexapla is the source for nearly all corruptions seen in today's bible versions (many thousands). He apparently was one conflicted fella, as he had castrated himself.

ChristRoseFromTheDead said:
Origen compiled the Hexapla that included the LXX. He lived centuries after the LXX was translated.
Click to expand...
Origen's Hexapla and the LXX are one in the same and thoroughly corrupt.

There are absolutely no manuscripts pre-dating the third century A.D. to validate the claim that Jesus or Paul quoted a Greek Old Testament. Quotations by Jesus and Paul in new versions’ New Testaments may match readings in the so-called Septuagint because new versions are from the exact same corrupt fourth and fifth century A.D. manuscripts which underlie the document sold today and called the Septuagint. These manuscripts are Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, and Sinaiticus.

According to the colophon on the end of Sinaiticus, it came from Origen’s Hexapla (please read it). The others likely did also. Even church historians, Jerome, Hort, and our contemporary D.A. Carson, would agree that this is true. Origen wrote his Hexapla two hundred years after the life of Christ and Paul! NIV New Testament and Old Testament quotes may match occasionally because both originated from a manuscript penned by the same hand — a hand which recast both Old and New Testament to suit his Platonic and Gnostic leanings. New versions take the Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and Alexandrinus manuscripts - which came from Origen’s Hexapla — and change the traditional Masoretic Old Testament text to match these. Alfred Martin, who was a past vice-president of Moody Bible Institute, called Origen “unsafe.” Origen’s Hexapla is a very unsafe source to use to change the historic Hebrew Old Testament.

Several previous posts have included sufficient documentation to successfully refute the credibility of LXX. Further promotion of this dubious invention is neither warranted nor sought.

Time to get back on track with PennEd's OP.
.
 
WiselyWoven said:
There are absolutely no manuscripts pre-dating the third century A.D. to validate the claim that Jesus or Paul quoted a Greek Old Testament.
Click to expand...

Apart from the Dead Sea scrolls, there are absolutely no Hebrew manuscripts predating 1008 AD. And they align more with the LXX than they do with the much older Masoretic Text. It doesn't matter that the original manuscripts of the LXX don't exist.
 
Daisy2 said:
PennEd I agree with Aaron on this one your theory of the nephilim is all little out there. It lacks evidence and is not supported by more than 3 verses in the bible. The rest is assumptions. The end reasoning is who could be saved if we are all inherently evil?
Click to expand...
I’d encourage you to read at least the first 4 or 5 pages of this thread.

While you’re doing that, ask yourself why the angels that sinned in a sexual manner as Jesus’s brother Jude tells us, are being held in Tartarus, as Peter tells us?

I think you’d be surprised at the mountain of Biblical proof.
 
.
The corrupt Vaticanus is sold today as the Septuagint.

Inquisitor said:
Some targums translating or paraphrasing the Bible into Aramaic were also made during the Second Temple period.[11]
Click to expand...
Aramaic Targums are corrupt ‘interpretations’ of the scriptures. For instance, they apply the Messianic prophecy of Psalm 22 to Esther. For example: In Isaiah 9:3 the traditional pure Hebrew Bible (e.g. Bomberg) and the King James Bible say,

“Thou hast multiplied the nation, and not increased the joy ...”

The Targums join the margin of the Hebrew Bible to lead the NKJV, NIV, TNIV, NASB, HCSB, and ESV to omit the word “not” saying, “You have multiplied the nation And increased its joy ...”

But I digress.

Who loved Hermes and also made the following statement promoting the so-called originals over the KJB?

“In the King James’ version, as it stands translated, it has no resemblance what ever to the original...And yet Septuagint [Greek], Vulgate,
and Hebrew original, have all to be considered as an inspired Word of God.’’

Was it a good pastor, a media preacher, or a knowledgeable scholar? Although they all express this view when they correct the Bible, this quote is not from them. It is from the arch-Satan worshipper of the late 1800s, Madame Helena P. Blavatsky (HJ. P. Blavatsky, Isis Unveiled, Wheaton, IL: The Theosophical Publishing House, 1972, orig. 1877, vol. 2, p. 495).

Yet how many good pastors have said, “the original actually says”? Have Greek and Hebrew study tools become the 67th book of the Bible?

“They believed not his word” (Ps. 106:24).

PennEd said:
ask yourself why the angels that sinned in a sexual manner as Jesus’s brother Jude tells us, are being held in Tartarus, as Peter tells us?

I think you’d be surprised at the mountain of Biblical proof.
Click to expand...
And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. (Jude 6)
 
  • Like
Reactions: PennEd
Aaron56 said:
You just inserted “angels”. Who’s not following scripture again?…
Click to expand...
Unless you are like some of the dudes that say the “sons of God” that assembled before the Lord in Job, and shouted for joy when God created the Universe, then you must know the case is closed the Bene Elohim (sons of God), mentioned ONLY in Job. and Genesis 6, ARE ANGELS.

Case closed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WiselyWoven
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back