Evidence for God from Science

B. W. wrote: Though not cannon the book of Enoch has some interesting information!

abelcainsbrother wrote:

SoCalExile wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote: You are reading the NT and other passages BACK into Genesis, which isn't standard practice.
Not saying you are wrong mind you, but you know what I mean.
Yet, we must address ALL the other passages in which sons of god means divine beings and why here, in its natural reading, it means otherwise.

The irony is that this means Jude should be tossed out. And Jesus used the term to refer to humans of faith just as we are. The fact is that the term is used for both humans and angels, the only common factor is faith. It's used for faithful angels and humans who become SoG by faith, which is my original argument. It is you that isn't grasping basic arguments (and ignoring the bulk of them against the A-H view).

Wow! Atleast you admit it,but when somebody says a book of scripture should be thrown out they are not going on what God's word says and are going on what they think.You cannot throw out Jude just because it shows you're wrong in the way you interpret the bible to claim angels did not have sexual relations with women producing hybrids.

How do you ignore Goliath too who was a hybrid Giant?There are many problems trying to make these passages like "sons of God' apply to man instead of angels that cause problems biblically. First off the bible does teach about angels and when you change God's word from when it is referring to angels to man you do away with bible teaching about angels and will not fully understand how evil the fallen angels are.

But also you will have no biblical way to address these false god's people did worship as god's,such as the many hindu gods who were fallen angels worshipped as gods,but then their Nephilim hybrid off-spring the giants that were worshipped as gods also like Hercules,Zeus,Saturn,Atlas,Mercury,etc. These were real gods people worshipped as gods but you have no biblical way to address these by denying that fallen angels produced hybrids. You have no way to explain to a hindu,pagan,etc the truth from a biblical perspective.

Galatians 1:8 notice the word angel.Also this how Mormonism was started and Islam by angels appearing to men.

SoCalExile wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

SoCalExile wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote: You are reading the NT and other passages BACK into Genesis, which isn't standard practice.
Not saying you are wrong mind you, but you know what I mean.
Yet, we must address ALL the other passages in which sons of god means divine beings and why here, in its natural reading, it means otherwise.

The irony is that this means Jude should be tossed out. And Jesus used the term to refer to humans of faith just as we are. The fact is that the term is used for both humans and angels, the only common factor is faith. It's used for faithful angels and humans who become SoG by faith, which is my original argument. It is you that isn't grasping basic arguments (and ignoring the bulk of them against the A-H view).

Wow! Atleast you admit it,but when somebody says a book of scripture should be thrown out they are not going on what God's word says and are going on what they think.You cannot throw out Jude just because it shows you're wrong in the way you interpret the bible to claim angels did not have sexual relations with women producing hybrids.

How do you ignore Goliath too who was a hybrid Giant?There are many problems trying to make these passages like "sons of God' apply to man instead of angels that cause problems biblically. First off the bible does teach about angels and when you change God's word from when it is referring to angels to man you do away with bible teaching about angels and will not fully understand how evil the fallen angels are.

But also you will have no biblical way to address these false god's people did worship as god's,such as the many hindu gods who were fallen angels worshipped as gods,but then their Nephilim hybrid off-spring the giants that were worshipped as gods also like Hercules,Zeus,Saturn,Atlas,Mercury,etc. These were real gods people worshipped as gods but you have no biblical way to address these by denying that fallen angels produced hybrids. You have no way to explain to a hindu,pagan,etc the truth from a biblical perspective.

Galatians 1:8 notice the word angel.Also this how Mormonism was started and Islam by angels appearing to men.

Good God man, have you even been paying attention? Goliath is never identified with the term "nephilim", nor can he be linked to anyone in Genesis 6 apart from Noah since Genesis 7 says EVERYTHING with breath, to include ALL MEN and animals were killed in the flood. Bam, done.

AGAIN let's review what Jude ACTUALLY SAYS:

3 Beloved, while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints. 4 For certain men have crept in unnoticed, who long ago were marked out for this condemnation, ungodly men, who turn the grace of our God into lewdness and deny the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ.

5 But I want to remind you, though you once knew this, that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe. 6 And the angels who did not keep their proper domain, but left their own abode, He has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of the great day; 7 as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

8 Likewise also these dreamers defile the flesh, reject authority, and speak evil of dignitaries.

Jude is NOT saying the angels had sex with women, it's saying they rejected God's authority and left heaven. THEN it mentions the perversion of S&G and those cities around them that engaged in the same sin. THEN Jude states that the apostates in his day are rejecting God's authority (as the angels had) and are practicing lewdness ( as the Sodomites did). You have to actually ignore what's being said to get this to support the A-H theory.

Then you go right to claims that are not in any scripture.

The false gods of other cultures have no rational basis in this discussion. It is an utter non-sequitur to think "false gods prove angel hybrid theory". For one, for false gods are false. Second, they're the product of the imaginations of sinful men or even deception by fallen angels; it in no way supports that angels had sex and produced offspring with humans. For one, that would mean that angels are in fact, human themselves since God in Genesis 1 made things to reproduce with its own kind.

I highly recommend a book called "Spirit of the Rainforest, a Yanomamo Shaman's Story" for insight in how deceptive fallen angels are.

abelcainsbrother wrote:
You have not researched or dug into the angel hybrid theory to claim that because if you did you would understand how it does explain people worshipping fallen angels and their hybrid off-spring as gods.You have'nt done the research and so do not know. I think you should research it yourself and remove your biases and you just might realize how important it is to understand this.Question the way you interpreted it and compare to how others who study the bible have came to realize and don't just claim you're right.

PaulSacramento wrote:Look what your buddy Matt States:
https://carm.org/what-are-nephilim

SoCalExile wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

SoCalExile wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote: You are reading the NT and other passages BACK into Genesis, which isn't standard practice.
Not saying you are wrong mind you, but you know what I mean.
Yet, we must address ALL the other passages in which sons of god means divine beings and why here, in its natural reading, it means otherwise.

The irony is that this means Jude should be tossed out. And Jesus used the term to refer to humans of faith just as we are. The fact is that the term is used for both humans and angels, the only common factor is faith. It's used for faithful angels and humans who become SoG by faith, which is my original argument. It is you that isn't grasping basic arguments (and ignoring the bulk of them against the A-H view).

Wow! Atleast you admit it,but when somebody says a book of scripture should be thrown out they are not going on what God's word says and are going on what they think.You cannot throw out Jude just because it shows you're wrong in the way you interpret the bible to claim angels did not have sexual relations with women producing hybrids.

How do you ignore Goliath too who was a hybrid Giant?There are many problems trying to make these passages like "sons of God' apply to man instead of angels that cause problems biblically. First off the bible does teach about angels and when you change God's word from when it is referring to angels to man you do away with bible teaching about angels and will not fully understand how evil the fallen angels are.

But also you will have no biblical way to address these false god's people did worship as god's,such as the many hindu gods who were fallen angels worshipped as gods,but then their Nephilim hybrid off-spring the giants that were worshipped as gods also like Hercules,Zeus,Saturn,Atlas,Mercury,etc. These were real gods people worshipped as gods but you have no biblical way to address these by denying that fallen angels produced hybrids. You have no way to explain to a hindu,pagan,etc the truth from a biblical perspective.

Galatians 1:8 notice the word angel.Also this how Mormonism was started and Islam by angels appearing to men.

Good God man, have you even been paying attention? Goliath is never identified with the term "nephilim", nor can he be linked to anyone in Genesis 6 apart from Noah since Genesis 7 says EVERYTHING with breath, to include ALL MEN and animals were killed in the flood. Bam, done.

Stu wrote:
I wouldn't use God's name in vain just because you are a little frustrated.

SoCalExile wrote:

Stu wrote:
I wouldn't use God's name in vain just because you are a little frustrated.

That's not His name, and it wasn't in vain, and I'm not frustrated. I deal with this emotional hard-headedness from people a lot.

Taking the Lord's name in vain has more to do with tacking the Lord's name on your personal stuff (like so many famous preachers and cult leaders do) than saying the general title of "God".

Stu wrote:

SoCalExile wrote:

Stu wrote:
I wouldn't use God's name in vain just because you are a little frustrated.

That's not His name, and it wasn't in vain, and I'm not frustrated. I deal with this emotional hard-headedness from people a lot.

Taking the Lord's name in vain has more to do with tacking the Lord's name on your personal stuff (like so many famous preachers and cult leaders do) than saying the general title of "God".

Well I hope you're right for your sake.

Also, just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they are hard-headed. I disagree with you by the way.

DBowling wrote:

B. W. wrote: Though not cannon the book of Enoch has some interesting information!

I agree that the book of Enoch is interesting.
But interesting does not necessarily mean historically accurate.

The book of Enoch is not canonical and therefore falls under the category of tradition as opposed to divinely inspired truth.
And as SoCal points out the origins of the book of Enoch do not extend back to anywhere near the time of the historical Enoch.

Jude's reference to the book of Enoch does present some interesting questions.
I believe Jude is using a quote from a piece of literature that was well known to the Christian/Jewish community as an example to demonstrate a theological truth.
I do not believe that Jude's quote from the book of Enoch implies that Jude is validating the totality of the book itself.

Since the book of Enoch is not divinely inspired Scripture and was written thousands of years after the time of the historical Enoch, I do not think we can presume that the book of Enoch is an accurate historical representation of what occurred in Genesis 6.
I think the book of Enoch does represent extrascriptural traditions that had arisen around the Genesis 6 story over the thousands of years that passed between Moses' documentation of the Genesis 6 story and the creation of the book of Enoch.

And as interesting as I find the book of Enoch to be, I am not inclined to treat the traditions captured in the book of Enoch as either divinely inspired or historically accurate truth.

SoCalExile wrote:Paul, your own Wiki link on the subject shows it wasn't universally accepted like you want to claim. You're cherry-picking evidence. Ultimately it matters what the Bible says, not men; that's the core disconnect here. You want to defer your understanding to men, I defer my understanding to what's in the text of scripture.

It's the same thing that leads you to discount the bible when it talks very clearly of a global flood, nevermind that it is also the accepted view of past scholars. Again, that doesn't matter in that case but it matters in this case.