waitasec
Veteran Member
and of course it was only the beautiful women that were unsaved
i hope you're kidding..
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
christians, what do you think of Genesis 6:1-8?
- Thread starter waitasec
- Start date
i hope you're kidding..
Eacltly proving my point The angels are used an example of not respecting authority and leaving their proper place.
the women are to wear a covering to show they are under authority
Once again you misquote the scriptures to try and prove your point
the verse reads "because of the angels" not "tempting the angels'
Shermana
Heretic
So what does "because of the angels" mean?
(The word "dia" is actually more or less "on account of" which means "by reason of") So what's the reason or account in question here?
If your answer is "To not be like the angels who rebelled", I guess you suppose that it doesn't apply to men as well for some reason?
Here is one site of many that is "misquoting scripture to make their point" as you put it.
http://gloryhidden.blogspot.com/2009/08/head-covering-long-hair-watchers-and.html
And Tertullian.
http://www.piney.com/FathEnochTertu.html
You're also completely avoiding the issue of Jude and 2 Peter, but hey, who needs to listen to Jude and Peter.
So was Og just over 10 feet tall due to Gigantism?
(The word "dia" is actually more or less "on account of" which means "by reason of") So what's the reason or account in question here?
If your answer is "To not be like the angels who rebelled", I guess you suppose that it doesn't apply to men as well for some reason?
Here is one site of many that is "misquoting scripture to make their point" as you put it.
http://gloryhidden.blogspot.com/2009/08/head-covering-long-hair-watchers-and.html
By the way, Justin Martyr beat me to this kind of "misquoting" almost 2000 years ago, as he also compared it to Genesis 6.
And Tertullian.
http://www.piney.com/FathEnochTertu.html
You're also completely avoiding the issue of Jude and 2 Peter, but hey, who needs to listen to Jude and Peter.
So was Og just over 10 feet tall due to Gigantism?
Last edited:
waitasec
Veteran Member
Shermana
Heretic
no way...
where is that written...?
i missed that
See above, it says "on account of the angels", and the Church Fathers mostly agreed with how I said it was interpreted.
waitasec
Veteran Member
Genesis 6 say the giants were already existed when the sons of god married, they were not their children
Theres a man 9 ft tall in Africa, therefore his father must be a fallen angel right?
So what youre claiming is evil angels left heaven, where able to create physical bodies for themselves, came to earth, asked for womens hand in marriage, had babies, worked a job to provide for their families and than came home to play with the kids and burp their babies:no:
Shermana
Heretic
Incorrect. It says the giants existed AFTER the Bnai Elohim came to Earth. Genesis 6:2 says they came to Earth, 6:4 says "There were giants in those days". You should read the exact scripture before making such claims.
That's why I asked if the entire race of Rephaim were naught but flukes or birth defects. Og was well over 10 feet, more like 12-15.
There's so much straw in this strawman, first off, have you ever heard of a single parent?
Regardless, you're still avoiding Jude and 2 Peter.
Strawman my foot, this is the nonsense you have to believe if your claim believe evil angels took human form and got married
I explained twice peter and jude are not claiming the angels committed sexual sins, they use them as examples of rejecting authority
Youre the one avoiding what Jesus said. Jesus said the sons of god refered to men, are you claiming he is a false teacher'
The 9 foot man shows a race of tall people could have occurred naturally and doesnt require
angels getting married.
I explained twice peter and jude are not claiming the angels committed sexual sins, they use them as examples of rejecting authority
Youre the one avoiding what Jesus said. Jesus said the sons of god refered to men, are you claiming he is a false teacher'
The 9 foot man shows a race of tall people could have occurred naturally and doesnt require
angels getting married.
Shermana
Heretic
Right, because all men take care of their babies. No strawman there.
I also like how you think it was referring to "unsaved women" back in the day. Who were the saved women in Genesis 6 and what did they do differently than the unsaved in your view?
Do you deny that Jude was calling the writings of Enoch prophetic? Pretty much every Church Father for the first few centuries considered Enoch legitimate scripture. So did the Dead Sea Scroll Qumran community. And Og was much taller than 9 feet, once again. Show evidence of a 12-15 foot person.
Also, feel free to continue to ignore Jude and 2 Peter where they specifically refer to the fallen angels as literal fallen angels. I guess they called Jesus a liar too by your logic. All you did was lie about what they directly said and tried to twist it. You can't just say "They are using them as examples of rejecting authority", when they point blank refer to them specifically. You're welcome to say that's your opinion, but you're going against the grand majority of interpretations at the time, and flat out ignoring the many scholars and church fathers who agree with this position as well as if their opinion doesn't count.
Hopefully you acknowledge your error at least in claiming that it says there were giants in those days before it mentions the fallen sons of god. So do you also claim that there was no reference to angels in Job as the Bnai Elohim?
Quote where he says this. Also, you have to say that "sons of god" is not referring to Angels in Job 2:1. And you'll have to say that all the old Jewish midrash on the subject was wrong too.
I also like how you think it was referring to "unsaved women" back in the day. Who were the saved women in Genesis 6 and what did they do differently than the unsaved in your view?
Do you deny that Jude was calling the writings of Enoch prophetic? Pretty much every Church Father for the first few centuries considered Enoch legitimate scripture. So did the Dead Sea Scroll Qumran community. And Og was much taller than 9 feet, once again. Show evidence of a 12-15 foot person.
Also, feel free to continue to ignore Jude and 2 Peter where they specifically refer to the fallen angels as literal fallen angels. I guess they called Jesus a liar too by your logic. All you did was lie about what they directly said and tried to twist it. You can't just say "They are using them as examples of rejecting authority", when they point blank refer to them specifically. You're welcome to say that's your opinion, but you're going against the grand majority of interpretations at the time, and flat out ignoring the many scholars and church fathers who agree with this position as well as if their opinion doesn't count.
Hopefully you acknowledge your error at least in claiming that it says there were giants in those days before it mentions the fallen sons of god. So do you also claim that there was no reference to angels in Job as the Bnai Elohim?
Last edited:
Enoch is not part of the Jewish cannon or Christian Bible. It stands rejected by both.
Jude also quotes "The assumption of Moses" not part of the cannon and it no longer even exists
Unsaved women mean not followers of God - Nehemiah tore mens hair out for marrying unbelievers
Fallen Angels means they rebelled against Gods authority, not that they fell to earth and got married
For example "how you have fallen day star son of dawn" referring to satan. Does this mean satan moved to earth, got married and raised children
Job 2:1 The sons of god refers to men. It is basically describing a church service, people coming together to hear the word of God. As Jesus said"if he called them gods to whom the word of God came".
Old Testament examples
Exodus 19:17 the people came to meet God and stood (presented) themselves at the foot of the mountain
Joshua 24:1 they presented themselves before God
1 Samuel 10:19 Now present yourselves before the Lord
It says "there were giants on the earth in those days and also after that when the sons of God came in to the children of men.
The giants already existed when this happened, they were not the result of it
Jude also quotes "The assumption of Moses" not part of the cannon and it no longer even exists
Unsaved women mean not followers of God - Nehemiah tore mens hair out for marrying unbelievers
Fallen Angels means they rebelled against Gods authority, not that they fell to earth and got married
For example "how you have fallen day star son of dawn" referring to satan. Does this mean satan moved to earth, got married and raised children
Job 2:1 The sons of god refers to men. It is basically describing a church service, people coming together to hear the word of God. As Jesus said"if he called them gods to whom the word of God came".
Old Testament examples
Exodus 19:17 the people came to meet God and stood (presented) themselves at the foot of the mountain
Joshua 24:1 they presented themselves before God
1 Samuel 10:19 Now present yourselves before the Lord
It says "there were giants on the earth in those days and also after that when the sons of God came in to the children of men.
The giants already existed when this happened, they were not the result of it
Last edited:
waitasec
Veteran Member
i wonder what they are implying when saying the sons of god and the daughters if humans...
Shermana
Heretic
1. Please provide a link to ANYone who says that Job 2:1 is referring to men and not angels. You're up against numerous translations that directly quote it as "Angels". Including the Septuagint. If you throw out the Septuagint, you'll have to explain why it doesn't count.
2. Enoch was considered scripture by nearly if not all Christian Church Fathers until after the Roman Canon councils. You're basing your view on modernity rather than what the ancients believed they wrote, and Jude himself considered Enoch prophetic. And the Assumption of Moses may in fact exist. There is no reason to throw it out completely. Jesus may have also mentioned the Testament of Solomon. You cannot throw out the Dead Sea Scroll canon just because the modern authorities reject it. It is a common error to believe that because later post 5th century believers threw out certain books that therefore the early believers didn't accept them. What you can say is that post-5th century believers didn't accept them if you want to remain intellectually honest. The Jews threw out the Apocrypha too, yet the Talmud refers to Sirach as scripture and Josephus refers to 1 Esdras as writ. There are numerous discrepencies. Also, Protestants threw out the Apocrypha which Catholics and Orthodox retained for a millenia, why is the Protestant canon correct? Why are the early Canons like the Muratorian fragment that included Gospel of Peter incorrect? Because later councils said so?
http://www.piney.com/Testament-Moses.html
3. You failed to demonstrate where Jesus says that "Sons of G-d" always refers to men, there is no such quote. Admit your error.
4.Did you skip what I said about Genesis 6:2? Have you even read it? It clearly says that the Bnai Elohim mated with the daughters of man BEFORE it says "there were giants in those days".
5. Once again you cannot just toss out the unanimous ancient tradition as if its totally bunk and all the Church Fathers and early Jewish Midrashim were wrong because later authorities reject it. Additionally, many modern scholars agree this is the case such as Albright. Can you reference any scholars like I did that debunk this claim?
6. Nehemiah lived long after the tribe of Israel and the Laws of Moses were formed. Can you provide a link detailing why the "unsaved women" were the reference in "daughters of men"?
7. The Septuagint clearly defines the word "Elohim" as "angels". Thus, this concept that "gods" and Bnai Elohim were recognized as angels by the Septuagint translators. Likewise, the Septuagint translates the phrase Bnai Elohim as "Angels of god". If you throw out the Septuagint translation as if it makes no matter, that's your choice, but hopefully you admit that's what the Septuagint translators believed it to mean.
In the end, you must admit that the EARLY fathers and scholars who lived around the time nearly all unanimously believed in this interpretation of Genesis 6, and that only LATER traditions tried to write it off as "sons of Seth". Hopefully you'll admit this. If anything, it may have been the Sethite Gnostics who first circulated this idea that it wasn't Angels and daughters of men.
Last edited:
outhouse
Atheistically
when you post links like these you loose all credibility in any serious debate
THE ASSUMPTION OF MOSES
pretty much not reliable at all.
Does it not seem like complete mythology???? are you suggesting a literal reading???
THE ASSUMPTION OF MOSES
pretty much not reliable at all.
Does it not seem like complete mythology???? are you suggesting a literal reading???
Last edited:
outhouse
Atheistically
I believe we have a winner here.
back then mortal men were deified on a regular basis.
Adam was a son of god. jesus, and im sure many more like in the book of kings
Shermana
Heretic
You'll have to explain your point on why the Assumption of Moses is not credible. There are numerous people who think it's legit. Likewise, it seems Jesus referenced the Testament of Solomon. I'm assuming you think that the Book of Enoch wasn't the same that Jude was referencing either? Just because a lot of scholars don't think its legit doesn't mean that there's serious studies given to it, as well as disagreement.
http://books.google.com/books?id=Q8...AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=assumption of moses&f=false
Try to keep it objective and to the point instead of attacking what you perceive to be the person's credibility based on what they post, because there are many people who consider it to be possibly legit. Likewise, if I referenced the Book of Jasher, there are many people who do consider it to be a potential candidate. Also, notice that I said MAY. But hey, why worry about details like I said MAY, and why bother with addressing the reasons why it's not considered credible, or affects my personal credibility. I think all you know how to do is to appeal to authority without getting into the why or how of what they say. Which is quite a common phenemenon. Do you know that Enoch was widely considered to be 1st century until it was found in the DSS? Scholarly concensus is not exactly set in stone as it seems many authority appealers like to insist. So, please go over the evidence of WHY this Latin manuscript is so obviously a forgery. Please. It's not like the Orthodox Church would be publishing new Torah-friendly documents, unless you think it was some Latin speaking Jew inventing it of course. Either way, the original point was that Jude was in fact quoting Enoch, which all the Church Fathers agreed was scripture, along with the Dead Sea Scroll community, do you deny that the same Enoch Jude quoted from was the same one found in Qumran?
You give away your rabid drive to attack the person instead of the idea a little too easily. You also have a habit of never actually backing up your claim beyond the initial attack phase. It's like I can see the foaming at the mouth of your posts.
Last edited:
outhouse
Atheistically
Do you think the world is as old as the link says it is?????
Do you think spreading misinformation is the right thing to do??