-
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.
I have given you a preponderance of evidence from scripture to show that 'sons of God' and angels are never mentioned in the same context and that scripture nowhere ever defines angels in this way and the evidence has been completely ignored. I do not wish to be insulting to anyone on this thread but I feel like I am talking to a room full of autistic children where nothing penetrates, nothing gets through, and the preponderance of evidence means nothing.
Your view is also a speculation.
If you hold the Seth's line view, this view does not give any answers. Thats why the fallen angels are giving much more sense, internally.
- why there were giants in those days?
- where are demons from?
- why do demons have such a desperate need to live in a body? Even Christ understood their need.
- why do demon in a synagogue talked like he talked about Christ?
- why was flood needed, people are ungodly all the time
- what angels is Jude talking about, then?
- why does Jude quote Enoch, the "extra-biblical speculation"?
See.. with the Seth's theory, you have no answers... with angels theory, I have answers to all. Thats why I must stay with the only one working theory, angels.
I am not saying that it is some very important issue for a Christian, but if we want to understand some events and surroundings in the Bible, it is quite useful.
I have addressed each and every one of these questions at length. If you did not believe me then, why would you believe me if I address them again?
I personally think that this evidence you just repeated is no evidence at all... I have even problem to understand what you want to say by it. How mentioned in the same context?
Scripture nowhere ever defines angels in this way? This is not true, see Job 1:6 and 2:1, please. Is Job Scripture?
I never seen you address these questions... if it is somewhere in this thread, I will have to probably read it from the beginning.
Where do you find the word angels in either of the passages? Assumption is proof of nothing. I think, my friend, that on this issue, we are simply going to have to agree that no consensus can be found and just leave it at that.
Would you be interested in looking at the Hebrew writer's inspired explanation of this text?
it is a lie to say that no other viable evidence has been presented, and an even bigger one to claim that we all went outside the scriptures..
I think Valiant, that from this point on, it would be a matter of prudence that I never respond to another of your posts. Not ever.
In Septuagint, as I already said
Job 1:6 and Job 2:1 have "angels" there.Also some English translations like ISV or NIV, but you will say they are not good translations, so I will not post them here.
Yeah, it seems so... nevermind
Hi OH: You seem like a respectable fellow and that counts a lot in my book. I remember as a very young man, my sister making a comment that the angels were into hanky panky with humans way back there, and I immediately gave her the story that you are presenting. I was a member of the Baptist church and had asked an older person about the sons of God in Genesis and he had informed me that they were just the sons of Adam that were trying to follow God. Well as time went on so did my bible study and one day I had to admit to myself the obvious, these persons were called sons of God because they did not have an earthly father. Also their children were of unusual ability, this would fit because their fathers were not normal men. A man who decides to follow God will not father a child any different physically then a man who decides not to follow God. Later on in Jude and Peter we have an explanation and the persons who were involve in immoral sex were identified as angels. So I do not see how one can argue against such evidence.
Again you prove my point, no one has went form Genesis 4:11-6:1 and shown that 6:2 are fallen angels. Because they can not do it, they keep bringing up outside information to try and prove there point. Everyone comes up with rabbit trails, since it seems no one that I've proposed this to has went from Genesis 4:11-6:1 to show how 6:2 are fallen angels. I'll repost what I see in the context of Genesis 4:11-6:1, 3, 5-8 so someone can take it apart, to show how in that context Genesis 6:2 fallen angels are introduced.
Ahwatukee, jaybird88 or anyone else that believes Genesis 6:2, 4 are fallen angels, are the son of God in this context, very important, "in this context". Can take this apart verse by verse, context by context
As mentioned the Godly line is Adam, the son of God, with Abel to carry out that line. Since Cain killed Able, "And Adam knew his wife again, and she bore a son and named him Seth,“For God has appointed another seed for me instead of Abel, whom Cain killed.” Genesis 4:25 in verses 26 "And as for Seth, to him also a son was born; and he named him Enosh. Then men began to call on the name of the Lord." The word men is added, Enosh means "Dedicated; disciplined", Seth, "Put; who puts; fixed" (Hitchcock's Bible names - Bible Dictionary) Eve name Seth-fixed, what Cain destroyed, for her Seed to be carried on, was fixed in Seth. Did Seth that brought back the line to carry her Seed, name his son Enosh-dedicated, because with him the line would continue to be dedicated to the Lord, to carry her Seed.
Seth carries on the son of God line of Adam Luke 3:23, 36-38 "Now Jesus Himself began His ministry at about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, the son of Heli,.................the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech, 37 the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of Mahalalel, the son of Cainan, 38 the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God." No mention of Cain, why? Because Cain was not the son to carry the line to, "her Seed" as in "between your seed and her Seed." Her Seed, is Jesus, which is traced back to Adam the son of God and that line were the sons of God and Cain his line being men, which Genesis 4:16-24 gives Cain's line, from Genesis 4:25 through 5:32 gives the line of Adam/Seth.
Genesis 6:1 says "Now it came to pass, when men (line of Cain) began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them (the line of Cain)," verve 2 "that the sons of God (line of Adam) saw the daughters of men (line of Cain), that they were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves of all whom they chose"
Where are angels introduced in the lines of Adam and Cain in the context of the history of man before the flood? With the Seed being the main story line, From Genesis to Revelation the Bible is about Jesus, His coming, His life, His return. Noah is in the line from Adam to Jesus or from Jesus to Adam, with all that being in the overall context of the Bible and chapter 4 and 5, Cain's line and Adam's line with Adam's line to carry on the Seed (Jesus). Why would the Holy Spirit introduce fallen angels into the context of the immediate story and the overall story?
The book of Enoch chapter 10 has nothing to do with the story, because it talks about angels and their crime (sin) being charged to azazeal, there is no mention of anyone other then man be charged with the crime (sins/wickedness) that were committed and the judgement in Genesis 6:5, which were the result of Genesis 6:1-4. (edit 6:3 should be with 6:5, it was a judgement of time and 6:1 is the multiplication of Cain's genealogy as mentioned above)
Genesis 6:5-8 "Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 And the Lord was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. 7 So the Lord said, “I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man and beast, creeping thing and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them.” 8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord."
With the context of Genesis 4:16-24 the line of Cain, men, his lines women, daughters of men. Genesis 4:25-5:32 the line of Adam the son of God, his line (of men) sons of God. With the two lines marrying in Genesis 6:1-4 (edit above), the results of those unions Genesis 6:5 (edit below), the Lord's reaction to the wickedness of man, Genesis 6:6-7, with one man finding grace with the Lord, Noah, part of the line from Adam to Jesus, Genesis 6:8. (edit 6:4 are the children of 6:2 the giants were already in the earth, in those days, and also after, (what days?) when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men and they bore children to them (who were these children?). These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown.)
How did angels get into that context, if the sons of God are not the line of Adam and Cain's women are not the daughters of men? The immediate context of Genesis 4:16-5:32 and Genesis 6:5-8, it doesn't fit, nor the overall context, with "her Seed" being the coming Messiah and Adam's genealogy goes to Jesus with Noah in that line.
Angel (edit fallen angels) do not fit the context, you have to read into the story, out of context, pull verse out of context and go outside of the Bible, to try and make a case that the "sons of God" as being fallen angels and to say they are not fallen, is even harder to prove. Because once they leave their first estate, they were cast into tartarus and are reserved in eternal chains of darkness until judgement, that does sound like an angel that is in good standing with God, to be called His son.
There it is for anyone that has the idea that fallen angels are in Genesis 6:2, 4 in this context from Genesis 4:11-6:1, 6:3, 5-8 with Noah being part of the genealogy of Genesis 4:25-5:32. No where have I said that the line of Adam/Seth is righteous, that's why they are the sons of God, as I was questioned about. I went outside of this context, is with Luke 3:23, 36-38 to show that Adam is called the son of God, not the Son of God as someone tries to say. I also mentioned chapter 10 of the book of Enoch, so if you would like to show how chapter 10 is talking about Genesis 4:11-6:1 resulting in Genesis 6:3, 5-7 you can do that with-in chapter 10 like I did, please no rabbit trails.
Because of that, whoever takes this apart to show fallen angels in 6:2, 4 in the context of 4:11-6:1, 6:3, 5-8 can use one chapter of the Bible to prove that fallen angels are called the sons of God. In the context of a chapter of the Bible, in the way Luke described Adam as the son of God. A dictionary showing how fallen angel means son of God, since I used Hitchcock's Dictionary of Bible names. Please no more rabbit trails, you only prove the point further, by not taking the contextual route to prove your point, whether you realize it or not.
This all reminds me of something I heard here in a video. "Do you believe what you read or do you read what you believe?" and another I heard a while back, "Are you teaching the Bible or are you teaching from the Bible?" it could be, "Are you being taught the Bible or are you being taught from the Bible?"
J
jaybird88
Guest
Luke says the sons of seth are sons of man, Adam is the only one called a son of the Most High. what were you saying about reading into the scripture?
J
jaybird88
Guest
you can name call from here to Christmas but its still not gonna make sons of the Most High show up in that scripture, it has to be read in from thin air.