Evidence for God from Science

RickD wrote:

B. W. wrote:

...Well based on how Moses uses the phrase "sons of the Lord your God" in Deut 14:1 it appears that Moses uses the term "sons of God" to refer to the people of God.

Moses' use of the "sons of God" to refer to God's people (Adam's descendants) is also consistent with Luke's use of the term "son of God" to specifically refer to Adam.

I also have a lot of difficulty with the assertion that "sons of God" is a legitimate or Scriptural term to describe fallen angels in rebellion against God.

Asserting that "sons of God" is a reference to wicked angels seems to me to totally miss who the good guys and who the bad guys are in the Genesis 6 story.

As I mentioned before I believe the theme of the Genesis 6 story is how the good guys (the sons of God) were corrupted by the bad guys (the daughters of men) when the good guys entered into relationships with and adopted the customs of the bad guys. This theme of good guys entering into relationship with and adopting the evil customs of the bad guys is a common theme throughout Scripture.

Which is why Paul warns believers not to become unequally yoked with unbelievers.

The issue I have is asserting that "sons of God" is a legitimate term to describe supernatural beings who are acting in rebellion against God.

Ancient Hebrews 8,200 to 8,500 word in an entire vocabulary compared to Modern Englishes 350,000 plus words used in another factor is being tossed out of the equation by modern folks.

Let's take the sons of god things literally then, sons of God mean that Mormonism is right, we are all little gods....

You all are smart enough to see how dumb it is to imply that out of the phrase , "Ye are god's sons of the most high..." to interpret this to mean as Mormonism teaches -that we are gods- is a violation of the first part of the Ten C's... as well as the rest of the bible.

Yet, that is what folks are implying here if we follow their line of reason as a cookie cutter one size all definition for the sons of god phrase. The phrase, sons of God, is from a language using limited vocabulary where one phrase or word is used not in a one size fits all way as the English and the West uses.

It has several nuances of meanings. I was showing how and why the ancient scholars and early church fathers all taught that Genesis 6 phrase indeed implies fallen angels and that the Sethite view was a later edition and not the norm.

Phrase 'sons of God' is a phrase meaning those God created and set in place to rule, govern, watch over, take care of, minster...judge... etc.

They can be angelic beings - messengers or human. Context is important. Ancient scholars derived from the context as well as other ancient documents that these were watchers who left heaven by means of rebellion and added more corruption to and into humanity. They did so by enticing human leaders to do what a group of fallen angels want to accomplished.

Ezekiel 28 and Isaiah 14 and Revelation 12 all give us clues that such a rebellion happened and by whom and that whom was not a human being. Sons of god also implied angels and not 100 percent of the time is confined in meaning to mean only human beings. Due to limited vocabulary same words and phrases can mean multiple things.

The issue is sexual intercourse - that phrase is due to limited vocabulary and is read into the text. However, there is enough evidence for ancient sources remain that human beings, plants, and animals were being genetically modified.

However, modern human beings view themselves wiser than any fallen angel, because we humans can genetically modify things but back in Genesis 6 the wisest of of the fallen angels were too stupid to be able to do this - well - is really dumb.

A language with a limited vocabulary would use a term meaning 'going into' to express what was going on but it does not mean that sexual intercourse happened to 'go into' as there are other means that our modern science has proven...

The issues is sex and modern folks are too focused on sex than to realize that the fallen angelic beings had a highly intelligent/skilled plot to corrupt humanity to destroy the one who would come and crush the serpent's head before that one came. To ascribe to the Sethite view due to sex issue is not using evidence of sources and taking into account limited vocabulary to connect the dots.

If as Sethite theroy says there was a pure line of human beings, or race, then how is that possible when through Adam came human sin nature entering the world? Couldn't Sethite view be used later for a master race theories that have come and gone?

Jesus said - as was in was in the days of Noah...

Where did this knowledge to genetically modify come from - is it being inspired by fallen angels? We maybe seeing how Genesis 6 about before our eyes.

Why did God warn about and make an OT law not to alter and mix seeds ie GMO's ?

-
-
-

If Sethite view is true then Romans 3:23 NKJV.. "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God..." is not true period. Neither would Romans Chatper 5 be true.... Sin spread from Adam to all - did it not or did it skip just the pure Sethites?

Next what of all the others in the Sethite Line who died in the flood, why did they not share in the escape of Noah?

What about mixed racial marriages today are they wrong? Answer is NO - Next point to consider and ask are their children any different from anyone else kids not of a mixed race marriage? Answer is no difference at all...

There are really big holes in the Sethite view Rick and others that actually need discussed...

Interesting article below on this to discuss:

https://bible.org/seriespage/7-sons-god ... nesis-61-8

From article I say these fallen angels did not - could not have intercourse but they are intelligent enough to mess with DNA nevertheless to mess up the genetic code of humanity.
-
-
-

B. W. wrote:
If Sethite view is true then Romans 3:23 NKJV.. "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God..." is not true period. Neither would Romans Chatper 5 be true.... Sin spread from Adam to all - did it not or did it skip just the pure Sethites?

Not sure how you came to that conclusion.

I haven't seen anyone who argues for the Sethite view that believes they were without sin.

Next what of all the others in the Sethite Line who died in the flood, why did they not share in the escape of Noah?

According to the Sethite view, the sethites were the sons of God who married the daughters of men. And that yolking unequally, lead the sethites, as well as others, to be so evil in God's eyes, that he sent the flood to wipe them out. Scripture says that Noah and his family were the only righteous in God's eyes.

What about mixed racial marriages today are they wrong? Answer is NO - Next point to consider and ask are their children any different from anyone else kids not of a mixed race marriage? Answer is no difference at all...

And who here, is arguing anything different?
I fail to see the connection between the Sethite view, and some kind of superior race. As far as I can tell, the Sethite view just falls in line with the descendants being God's people, Israel.

There are really big holes in the Sethite view Rick and others that actually need discussed...

There may be big holes, but all of the straw men arguments you just posted, don't show any holes.

And like I said, I'm not convinced of the Sethite view.

From article I say these fallen angels did not - could not have intercourse but they are intelligent enough to mess with DNA nevertheless to mess up the genetic code of humanity.

That would directly contradict Genesis 6:4

The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them.

Whoever the sons of God were, the daughters of men bore their children.
If you want to believe something outside of scripture(DNA manipulation), that's fine. But you can't seriously use Genesis 6:4 to back it up.

Here's an interesting article on the height of Goliath, the average heights of soldiers in ancient Israel. IF the average Joe was around 5.5 feet, a 7 foot fellow would have been considered huge.

https://pursiful.com/2009/10/06/saul-an ... -the-tape/

Philip wrote:Here's an interesting article on the height of Goliath, the average heights of soldiers in ancient Israel. IF the average Joe was around 5.5 feet, a 7 foot fellow would have been considered huge.

https://pursiful.com/2009/10/06/saul-an ... -the-tape/

I have saw pictures of giant skeletons that have been dug up and they are alot taller than 7 foot more like 20 foot atleast.In one picture a man is standing beside the hole dug in the ground and you can see the giant skeleton that is atleast 20 feet tall or taller just by looking at the photo.There is more than one photo of these also.Now those who reject this might claim they are fake photos but there are Christian ministries that search and look for evidence of these giants and they have found evidence.They travel the world looking for evidence,talking to other people of other cultures to gain clues,etc.These people believe the fallen angels produced hybrid interpretation and they not only look for phyical evidence but also scripturally,plus these other texts that are not in our bible.However some of them were found with the dead sea scrolls.I can't lie that if you really get into this interpretation and examine the evidence it really makes you wonder why some of these books were left out of our bible and some claim they used to be in our bible but were left out.It can make you think that they were left out to cover up this information.Some say that these are the words that were sealed up until the time of end when knowledge would be increased.Daniel 12:4

So how many Sumerian kings were based on the Nephilim and/or the early patriarchs?

I would like to say also about these controversial biblical texts that are not in our bible but from what I have heard not only do they help clarify alot about what the fallen angels did but there are other things that they clarify too that are mysteries if you don't know about it.Like how it is a mystery of last forty days of the life of Jesus and even teachings Jesus taught his disciples that are not in our bible but yet seem to bring clarity to certian things that are mysteries if we just go by the books in our bible.And they don't seem like contradictions,etc when it fits with what the bible already reveals it really seems to bring clarity based on what our bible already reveals.I mean they cannot be held in as high regard as the bible and I do not recomend that they be read unless you have a good understanding of the bible first because you would not be able to tell when the information lines up or contradicts the bible but they do bring some clarity to things that would ordinarilly be mysteries if we did not know about it.I think that if you have a good knowledge and understanding of the bible you can tell if it is bad info that contradicts the bible and you can reject it.This is about just using these other texts to gain clarity and understanding where usually there is'nt any and using the good info but throwing out the bad.

thatkidakayoungguy wrote:So how many Sumerian kings were based on the Nephilim and/or the early patriarchs?

Here are a couple of interesting videos about the Sumerian King Lists and their potential relationship to the patriarchs in Genesis 5.

Here's one by Michael Heiser
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vW89PK5nBQ

Here's one by Richard Fischer
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5A3Hz0f7ZYw

PaulSacramento wrote:On a side note Db, what are your views on the "other gods" in the bible?

I guess my starting point is that the clear teaching of Scripture is that there is one true God.

I wanted to do a quick search before I answered, and Scripture generally uses the term "gods" in reference to false gods or idols created by men.
I guess demons could fall under the category of false gods.

Then there is Psalm 82:6 where some men are referred to as "gods". When Jesus quotes this passage, he is evidently referring to men to whom the word of God came.

In summary, even though we have the Psalm 82:6 example quoted by Jesus which refers to men as "gods", the overwhelming majority of Scriptures use the term "gods" to refer to the false gods created by man (Psalm 96:5).

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Philip wrote:Here's an interesting article on the height of Goliath, the average heights of soldiers in ancient Israel. IF the average Joe was around 5.5 feet, a 7 foot fellow would have been considered huge.

https://pursiful.com/2009/10/06/saul-an ... -the-tape/

I have saw pictures of giant skeletons that have been dug up and they are alot taller than 7 foot more like 20 foot atleast.In one picture a man is standing beside the hole dug in the ground and you can see the giant skeleton that is atleast 20 feet tall or taller just by looking at the photo.There is more than one photo of these also.Now those who reject this might claim they are fake photos but there are Christian ministries that search and look for evidence of these giants and they have found evidence.They travel the world looking for evidence,talking to other people of other cultures to gain clues,etc.These people believe the fallen angels produced hybrid interpretation and they not only look for phyical evidence but also scripturally,plus these other texts that are not in our bible.However some of them were found with the dead sea scrolls.I can't lie that if you really get into this interpretation and examine the evidence it really makes you wonder why some of these books were left out of our bible and some claim they used to be in our bible but were left out.It can make you think that they were left out to cover up this information.Some say that these are the words that were sealed up until the time of end when knowledge would be increased.Daniel 12:4

http://www.snopes.com/photos/odd/giantman.asp
ACB,

I don't want to disappoint you, but those pics of centaur skeletons, may be fake too.

DBowling wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:On a side note Db, what are your views on the "other gods" in the bible?

I guess my starting point is that the clear teaching of Scripture is that there is one true God.

I wanted to do a quick search before I answered, and Scripture generally uses the term "gods" in reference to false gods or idols created by men.
I guess demons could fall under the category of false gods.

Then there is Psalm 82:6 where some men are referred to as "gods". When Jesus quotes this passage, he is evidently referring to men to whom the word of God came.

In summary, even though we have the Psalm 82:6 example quoted by Jesus which refers to men as "gods", the overwhelming majority of Scriptures use the term "gods" to refer to the false gods created by man (Psalm 96:5).

False gods doesn't mean they don't exist though.
Not sure why you would interpret Psalm 82 as being humans when the scene takes place in heaven, that the "gods" on trial will die like mortals is kind of a weird thing to say when that is what humans do regardless.

What about the division of the nations between the 70 sons of God?
Do you agree that this has to do with the Tower of Babel story?
What about the gods allotted to the different nations?
Who then was the Prince of Persia in Daniel?

Paul: False gods doesn't mean they don't exist though.

Yes, clearly, the demonic masquerades as false gods to deceive their followers. Of course they are NOT gods, but they are real and are leading their followers to believe they are something they are not. They are demons leading their followers into all kinds of horrible practices, bondage and destruction - often requiring even the sacrifice of infants and children from their parents.

Deuteronomy 32:8-9English Standard Version (ESV)

8 When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance,
when he divided mankind,
he fixed the borders[a] of the peoples
according to the number of the sons of God.
9 But the Lord's portion is his people,
Jacob his allotted heritage.

If this is related to the tower of babel incident, and most scholars believe it to be, this clears up the passages about Israel worshiping gods not allotted to them.
But this happened BEFORE there was an Israel, so translations that state "sons of Israel" are not correct ( like the NASB).

It also explains who the Prince of Persia is and why the archangel Michael ( one of the chief princes) is the Prince of Israel.

How did I come to this conclusion:

In the spellings and grammar of the Hebrew word translated wife. woman used in the OT. The Strong's Number is H-802. This word is spelled so many different ways that one cannot read into its meaning as wife or wives in all cases it is used. this word is used in 267 verses in the Torah alone and spelled so many different ways it would make your head spin

The word is spelled differnt in Gen 6:2 than it is in Gen 6:18. Verse 18 denotes wives, wife. Verse two does not. Spelling...very important thing along with context to see the correct meaning of words as well as look at other verses where the word is used - spelled the same way as well as with prefix or suffix added in.

Look at: Gen 2:25 ויהיוH1961 שׁניהםH8147 ערומיםH6174 האדםH120 ואשׁתוH802 ולאH3808 יתבשׁשׁו׃H954

802 is traslted as what? Wife... it is not spelled the same way in Gen 6:2

Gen 6:2 ויראוH7200 בניH1121 האלהיםH430 אתH853 בנותH1323 האדםH120 כיH3588 טבתH2896 הנהH2007 ויקחוH3947 להם נשׁיםH802 מכלH3605 אשׁרH834 בחרו׃H977

In Gen 6:18 והקמתיH6965 אתH853 בריתיH1285 אתךH854 ובאתH935 אלH413 התבהH8392 אתהH859 ובניךH1121 ואשׁתךH802 ונשׁיH802 בניךH1121 אתך׃H854

Wives and wife have prefix and suffix letters used in grammar so one reads wife and son's wives the root of 802 is spelled:

אשּׁה - 'ishshâh

Gen 2:23 and Gen 6:18 contain that root word in their spellings. In Gen 6:18 there is another spelling that also denotes wife too and context points that out.

Gen 6:2 spelling root is is used in Gen 18:11 and translated as childbearing in KJV

Here is what the bottom line translation of Genesis 6:2 after investigating the spelling of the word wives used in that verse..

Gen 6:2 that the sons of God saw that the daughters (Young girls entering their youthful prime) of men were beautiful (Functionally good, fair, for something); and they took (Grasped seized) wives (Childbearing ones) for themselves, whomever they chose (Required, tried, tested to select) ....

That is it. It flies in the face of the norms of what many say about this verse. My point is this: You cannot translated the word 'ishshâh in all its varied spellings to mean wife, wives in all cases. Spelling is important...and the context...

Gen 6:1 mentions that what was seen, young girls entering and of childbearing age on the EARTH.

The sons of god in verse two saw them on looking down at the earth - watchers - angelic beings. They hatched a plot to corrupt the genetic code of human beings, animals, and plants.

Rev 12:4, His tail drew a third of the stars of heaven and threw them to the earth. And the dragon stood before the woman who was ready to give birth, to devour her Child as soon as it was born. NASB

I/3rd of the fallen ones were cast to the earth by Satan before he came...

Gen 3:1-6,15 reveal what to you in light of Rev 12:4 ?

Why would the Devil's tactics change in Gen 6...

Genesis 6:2 contians the Aleph and TaV (H853) and is not translated in the verse - know also in Greek in Rev 1:8 as this: "I am the Alpha and the Omega..."

Gen 6:2 that the sons of God (Watchers-fallen from YHWH) saw that the daughters (Young girls entering their youthful prime) of men were beautiful (Functionally good, fair, for something); and they took (Grasped seized) wives (Childbearing ones - [not wives) for themselves, whomever they chose (Required, tried, tested to select)

The result was this:

Gen 6:4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.

This is not saying what many traditionally think it says - they took willing wives. They did not get willing women - they seized them because they were functionally good for something - prime of life childbearing young women - and that was to stop Gen 3:15 from happening.

Enoch explains they leaders of men of that era gained forbidden knowledge as a result of this...in exchange for their daughters...

I do not know how the watchers - fallen ones - manipulated the DNA but that is not important. You do not need to have sexual relations to alter DNA - you need biological science and skill - that is all.

Human beings today are modifying DNA. China, if report is true, has perfected it DNA altered dogs. These look monstrous and are not for Chinese grocery store but for War Dogs. They are seeking to beef up Humans into super warriors, military service personnel, so the report goes

Plants are now GMO so are animals ...

We are doing it and it would be stupid to think fallen angels cannot have done so, or taught people long ago to do so, so they can finish there plans, is really ignorant...

Luke 17:26 "And just as it happened in the days of Noah, so it will be also in the days of the Son of Man:
Luke 17:27 they were eating, they were drinking, they were marrying, they were being given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all.
Luke 17:28 "It was the same as happened in the days of Lot: they were eating, they were drinking, they were buying, they were selling, they were planting, they were building;
Luke 17:29 but on the day that Lot went out from Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven and destroyed them all.
Luke 17:30 "It will be just the same on the day that the Son of Man is revealed. NASB

1 Peter 3:19,20 - 2 Peter 2:5,6 Jude 1:6

That is why I say what I mentioned earlier Gen 6:2 is about fallen angels not having literal sex but instead somehow altering DNA. And that the Sethite view is invalid because Sehites were on the earth not above the earth nor were they on a tall mountain. They were corrupted by by sin like everyone else.

Rahab was called a what in the Bible? She was of mixed Canaanite blood, yet, also became part of Jesus Family Tree. For the Sethite view to be true - this could not have happened to retain a pure line...

Blessings and no hard feelings...
-
-
-

P.S. The word spelled in Hebrew, נשׁים - pronounced as nâshı̂ym - translated as wives in Gen 6:2 is used in that spelling 55 times in 53 verses in the OT. It is most often used to mean: women however denoting childbearing women more than it is translated as wives. Also, when it is translated as wives it denotes childbearing women such as concubines - for example - to give King David more children. Or so aspect of childbearing, rearing, or past that time.

Since context of Chapter six is about birthing - then it stands that the meaning of word wives in Gen 6:2 should read childbearing women and not wives.

Gen 6:18 and Gen 2:23 spellings are more in line to be translated as Wife, wives than not.

Just saying....
-
-
-

B. W. wrote:P.S. The word spelled in Hebrew, נשׁים - pronounced as nâshı̂ym - translated as wives in Gen 6:2 is used in that spelling 55 times in 53 verses in the OT. It is most often used to mean: women however denoting childbearing women more than it is translated as wives. Also, when it is translated as wives it denotes childbearing women such as concubines - for example - to give King David more children. Or so aspect of childbearing, rearing, or past that time.

Since context of Chapter six is about birthing - then it stands that the meaning of word wives in Gen 6:2 should read childbearing women and not wives.

Gen 6:18 and Gen 2:23 spellings are more in line to be translated as Wife, wives than not.

Just saying....
-
-
-

Doesn't prove the angel-hybrid theory. All theories on this passage teach that children were born, the argument is over whether those kids had angelic ancestry or were born of a mixture of the holy (people of faith) and profane (people of disbelief).