Evidence for God from Science

PaulSacramento wrote:

RickD wrote:B. W.,

I'm trying to find the book of Enoch in my bible, and I can't seem to find it. Could you tell me where it is?

You really wanna open up THAT can of worms?
How many books in YOUR bible Rick?
What bible did Jesus and His apostles read? all 1st century Jews read?

LOL !
Watcha talkin about Willis ?!

Rick we discussed this in privet...

Yes, fallen angels are mentioned in the bible

Luke 10:18 And He said to them, "I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven.

Rev 12:3 And another sign appeared in heaven: behold, a great, fiery red dragon having seven heads and ten horns, and seven diadems on his heads. 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.

Isa 14:12 "How you are fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How you are cut down to the ground, You who weakened the nations!

Ezekiel 28:11-19

Bible quotes from NKJV

Yes the bible speaks of these as fallen angelic beings, even Jesus said he saw the head honcho fall...
-
-
-

B. W. wrote:Yes, fallen angels are mentioned in the bible

Luke 10:18 And He said to them, "I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven.

Rev 12:3 And another sign appeared in heaven: behold, a great, fiery red dragon having seven heads and ten horns, and seven diadems on his heads. 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.

Isa 14:12 "How you are fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How you are cut down to the ground, You who weakened the nations!

Ezekiel 28:11-19

Bible quotes from NKJV

Yes the bible speaks of these as fallen angelic beings, even Jesus said he saw the head honcho fall...
-
-
-

Implicitly, yes.
Pretty sure everyone agrees with that.

Sumerian mythical kings and relationship to Nephilim

Here are a few articles and the kings list...

Sumerian mythical kings List

http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/section2/tr211.htm

Sumerian mythical kings article

http://www.ancient-origins.net/myths-le ... rch-001287

Sumerian mythical kings Wiki

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumerian_King_List

Brief Wiki article that give background to ancient Sumerian deities as well as provide a list for further investigation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumerian_religion

After one digs and research this out you might be led to the same conclusion as countless scholars have concerning this kings list - the list describes ancient Sumerian gods, those whom Sumerian people worshiped. Dig further and note not the names only but the character traits of these on the list and they later blend and gel with the ancient pantheon list noted in the Wiki article seven Primordial beings which are the same as the Seven who Decree in character traits. The names change but not the characteristics. They are the same. In the kings list 8 are mentioned and in the ancient Sumerian pantheon there are 7.

Many scholars who study this discount the bible right away and ignore the clue mentioned Rev 12:4 that the dragon drew and threw his minions to earth before he arrived. It does say that. Most folks do not pay any attention to this. You can conclude that the first there were seven main leaders of the rebellion in heaven and these are those listed as the seven primordial/decreeing being. For get how longs a Sar/year is. Different measurement of time under a different paradigm we know nothing about.

Who were the Nephilim then?

Most likely a new breed of genetically engineered human beings whose genes mixed with other animals and or possibly plants.

We are experimenting with such mixing between species now as well as using selective breeding techniques between same species whoever speeded up by gene splicing see this video



In Gen 6:4 you have the words Ha-adam (men), bnowat (young women), and Nephilim used in the text.

Next phrase sons of God used in verse 4 is qualified further by an untranslated word used in Gen 6:2 following the phrase sons of God which is two Hebrew letters Aleh Tav (first and last letters of Hebrew alphabet) which is known in Greek as the Alpha and Omega - note Rev 1:8 - This show a link that YHWH created the sons of gods mentioned in the text and this from grammar and word usage denotes angelic beings were the sons god - who fell - just as the bible teaches.

If the Nephilim did not originate with the fallen angelic beings then the word - Ha'adam would have been used instead of Nephilim as the context would show it. Nephilim denotes another type or race of human beings of great size and utter wickedness.

As Rev 12:4 b says; "And the dragon stood before the woman who was about to give birth, so that when she gave birth he might devour her child," reveals the plot - to destroy Jesus from fulfilling Gen 3:15, which they failed. Amen!

I have been trying to show that as Jesus warned and gave a clue on what to look for in the last days by his phrase as it was in the days of Noah so shall in it... Mat 24:37 -Luke 17:26

We are now seeing gene splicing mixed species under the noblest of reason - cure cancer, feed the world etc... However, how long before human sin nature decides to-remake perfected human beings and does it?

You have the major multinational-corporations and pharmaceutical industry involved for profit. Thus you have these as well as these Corporate Leaders/elites/Governing leaders gaining knowledge of this science and we pay no attention and debate if angels - humans sexual intercourse is possible or not when in fact our own science has proven that sexual intercourse is not needed at all.

We base such ideas on our own paradigm that ancient people before the flood were all ignorant brutish people coming out of caves to begin making cities and farms.

All I can do is point out - look at genetic research going on and draw your own conclusions if we are entering - the revised days of Noah Jesus warned about and look to yourself and relationship with the Lord...

Blessings
-
-
-

If you want to believe in all that, go ahead. But my point that you cannot refute, is that you cannot possibly get all that DNA splicing from the text.

Show me proof, maybe Hebrew lexicons, any Hebrew lexicons, that translate Genesis 6:4, as you claim.

You are basing a biblical interpretation, on completely extra-biblical sources, and mysticism.

RickD wrote:If you want to believe in all that, go ahead. But my point that you cannot refute, is that you cannot possibly get all that DNA splicing from the text.

Show me proof, maybe Hebrew lexicons, any Hebrew lexicons, that translate Genesis 6:4, as you claim.

You are basing a biblical interpretation, on completely extra-biblical sources, and mysticism.

I would have major problems with anyone trying to build a theological certainty or doctrine based upon such pure speculations. Sure, with the demonics' ability to deceive and transform into whatever strategic manifestation or to plot mayhem against God's people - there is undoubtedly a huge range of possibilities. But just like all of the end-times nonsense that sells books, that various authors are convinced that they've figured it all out - and they can provide "pertinent Scriptural support for it!" But if they get just one aspect of the thing wrong - their entire thesis caves. If understanding this issue were so clear, there wouldn't be nearly the debate and speculation amongst those who subscribe to inerrancy. But there is - which tells me it's in no way clear. I read a lot of possibilities that might fit what Scripture says - if in a general way - but they remain no more than speculative possibilities, and impossible to prove.

RickD wrote:If you want to believe in all that, go ahead. But my point that you cannot refute, is that you cannot possibly get all that DNA splicing from the text.

Show me proof, maybe Hebrew lexicons, any Hebrew lexicons, that translate Genesis 6:4, as you claim.

You are basing a biblical interpretation, on completely extra-biblical sources, and mysticism.

Although I tend to agree with you scripturally that you cannot get DNA splicing from Genesis 6:4 as you say.I'm not so sure I agree that we cannot discover things that does reveal to us what God's word was meaning.I mean God's word is living and more of it is revealed to be true as time goes on.There are many examples I could get into where the bible is discovered to be true based on some new discovery.So eventhough I'm not sure it should be translated as DNA splicing it is happening now and if we know that there were hybrids in the days of Noah and even after the days of Noah then we can know that hybrids will return in the last days as in the days of Noah.

I think it is how the hybrids are produced that we differ on but we can say that hybrids will return in the last days.He seems to believe they return because of humans DNA splicing producing the hybrids while me and others believe hybrids will be produced by fallen angels again and be released in the last days.Either way we can say hybrids will return in the last days as in the days of Noah.

Now for those who reject the fallen angels producing hybrid/Nephilim interpretation then I think the only thing they can focus on returning in the last days as in the days of Noah is violence and although we do see violence we have really always had violence so it is kinda weak to me to just focus on that.

RickD wrote:
You are basing a biblical interpretation, on completely extra-biblical sources, and mysticism.

Actually, you do realize that much of the biblical interpretation we have from tradition ( Apostolic fathers and so forth) is not JUST based on the written word of the bible but also outside sources.
Truth be it told, many times you need outside sources of the time to read into what the writers were saying to their specific audience.
Our 20th/21st century mindset and POV is very limited in that regard ( that is why some modern critiques don't vale oral tradition of the ANE and the 1st century NE, because they don't understand that it was regarded HIGHER than the written word and was NOT a game of "broken telephone").

That is why I created that thread about the role of tradition in the interpretation of the biblical texts.

B.W, ACB,

Let's focus on what the text says regarding "in the days of Noah":

Matthew 24:37-39:
37 For [y]the coming of the Son of Man will be just like the days of Noah. 38 For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, 39 and they did not [z]understand until the flood came and took them all away; so will the coming of the Son of Man be.

It seems to me, that the text is saying that people will be living their lives normally, without giving thought to impending doom. I'll be darned, but I just don't see where it says anything about evil Angel/human hybrids, or DNA manipulation, being the reason why there's a comparison between the coming of the Son of Man, and the days of Noah. Since I know we all want to follow what scripture actually says, and not follow some mystical interpretation that is read into scripture, would someone please be kind enough to point out where the Bible says that the reason for the comparison between Noah's day, and the coming of the Son of Man is due to fallen angels or DNA manipulation?

PaulSacramento wrote:

RickD wrote:
You are basing a biblical interpretation, on completely extra-biblical sources, and mysticism.

Actually, you do realize that much of the biblical interpretation we have from tradition ( Apostolic fathers and so forth) is not JUST based on the written word of the bible but also outside sources.
Truth be it told, many times you need outside sources of the time to read into what the writers were saying to their specific audience.
Our 20th/21st century mindset and POV is very limited in that regard ( that is why some modern critiques don't vale oral tradition of the ANE and the 1st century NE, because they don't understand that it was regarded HIGHER than the written word and was NOT a game of "broken telephone").

That is why I created that thread about the role of tradition in the interpretation of the biblical texts.

Paul,

If you keep my text in the context of what I was referring to, you'd see it was a response specifically to B. W.'s DNA manipulation theory.

RickD wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

RickD wrote:
You are basing a biblical interpretation, on completely extra-biblical sources, and mysticism.

Actually, you do realize that much of the biblical interpretation we have from tradition ( Apostolic fathers and so forth) is not JUST based on the written word of the bible but also outside sources.
Truth be it told, many times you need outside sources of the time to read into what the writers were saying to their specific audience.
Our 20th/21st century mindset and POV is very limited in that regard ( that is why some modern critiques don't vale oral tradition of the ANE and the 1st century NE, because they don't understand that it was regarded HIGHER than the written word and was NOT a game of "broken telephone").

That is why I created that thread about the role of tradition in the interpretation of the biblical texts.

Paul,

If you keep my text in the context of what I was referring to, you'd see it was a response specifically to B. W.'s DNA manipulation theory.

Oh yes, I know.
I was just speaking in general that we shouldn't disregard extra-canonical texts because those before us ( the traditions handed down) didn't.

PaulSacramento wrote:

RickD wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

RickD wrote:
You are basing a biblical interpretation, on completely extra-biblical sources, and mysticism.

Actually, you do realize that much of the biblical interpretation we have from tradition ( Apostolic fathers and so forth) is not JUST based on the written word of the bible but also outside sources.
Truth be it told, many times you need outside sources of the time to read into what the writers were saying to their specific audience.
Our 20th/21st century mindset and POV is very limited in that regard ( that is why some modern critiques don't vale oral tradition of the ANE and the 1st century NE, because they don't understand that it was regarded HIGHER than the written word and was NOT a game of "broken telephone").

That is why I created that thread about the role of tradition in the interpretation of the biblical texts.

Paul,

If you keep my text in the context of what I was referring to, you'd see it was a response specifically to B. W.'s DNA manipulation theory.

Oh yes, I know.
I was just speaking in general that we shouldn't disregard extra-canonical texts because those before us ( the traditions handed down) didn't.

With that said, you would agree that none of the apostolic fathers interpreted scripture and found the DNA manipulation belief, correct?

I'm not dogmatic on my opinion of this, but I do lean more to the angels coming down having sex with women creating offspring. I think there was genetic manipulation happening but in a more direct way for the angels pre-flood (and a little after until the conquest to destroy the nephalim by the old Kings). I think no angel dared to bare the punishment that would bring after major divine interventions to destroy its fruit. I think today it's being brought about in other ways (such as what B.W. mentions) because they restrict even their own presence (which I also think helped pave the way for the era of grace we are currently in and why faith is the hardest to have in our era). As for a defense of my leaning towards angels and women getting together, do you see any flaws in this article? http://unamsanctamcatholicam.com/theolo ... hilim.html