Angels reproducing with humans possible? - Page 16

Pressing-On · #**151** 09-09-2014, 05:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

Mystical and strange? That's what normal, unsaved people think when we teach something like this:

Isaiah 48:12-13

12Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called; I am he; I am the first, I also am the last

13Mine hand also hath laid the foundation of the earth, and my right hand hath spanned the heavens: when I call unto them, they stand up together.

They would say "So your telling me some guy stood up in the middle of nothing and commanded that billions of galaxies containing trillions of Suns and Planets just suddenly appear and within 6 days that happened"?

YEAH RIGHT.

Get the point? Its not about trying to sound educated. The world rejects ALL the miraculous in scripture.

Its our mission to be BELIEVERS in whatever YHWH says.

I don't think any of us care what the world thinks about any subject in the Bible. I would, though, expect Christians to be reasonable in the analysis. Power and strangeness are not the same thing, IMO.

Praxeas · #**152** 09-09-2014, 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sean

According to Sean they were the people that were there in Noah's day...I wonder if they were on the Ark too with Noah...

To clarify, Everyone. including Noah and his children were Giants. And no, the "other" bigguns' were not on the Ark also.

BUT this group of people called "Sons of God"...does that just refer to Noah and his 3 sons? They were the only sons of God?

And if so why separate this group "Sons of God" from Noah's group later?

Praxeas · #**153** 09-09-2014, 05:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sean

According to Sean they were the people that were there in Noah's day...I wonder if they were on the Ark too with Noah...

To clarify, Everyone. including Noah and his children were Giants. And no, the "other" bigguns' were not on the Ark also.

It's a good thing he made room on the ark for 8 GIANTS

Praxeas · #**154** 09-09-2014, 06:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sean

Quote:

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Once again Jess does NOT say anything about ILLICIT activities. You are adding to what Jesus said. You want an answer to a question that is based on a false reading of what Jesus actually said.

Lets look at it again...37 But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,

39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

Jesus mentions..."given in marriage", implying something worthy of sin an death to mankind. Notice He targets marriage, just like Gen. 6:2.....it completely agrees as reference passage to Jesus. Jesus was simply speaking of the written account of Gen. (also notice He mentions nothing of demon babies or angels AT ALL) It is YOU that deny the implications of problems with what the "given in marriage" statement means.(the only damning sin we see in Gen. 6 is a "marriage" problem, how can you not see the connection)?

"given in marriage" does NOT imply sin. It implies marriage. He also targets EATING. So using your logic eating and Marriage are sins.

And to continue YOUR flawed logic, these must be sins too
Luk 17:27 They were eating and drinking and marrying and being given in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all.
Luk 17:28 Likewise, just as it was in the days of Lot--they were eating and drinking, buying and selling, planting and building,
Luk 17:29 but on the day when Lot went out from Sodom, fire and sulfur rained from heaven and destroyed them all--
Luk 17:30 so will it be on the day when the Son of Man is revealed.

Don't buying and selling, planting and building...its a sin!

Jesus was talking about how in the days of Noah people won't know the flood is coming as in our day they won't know the end is coming. No mention of illicit activities.

On the contrary, you just expect graphic detail of their sins, but they were not described in detail

No I don't expect graphic details but it would be nice to MENTION what their sins were. Marriage is not a sin. It never was and never will be

BTW why call them "Sons of God" and not rather just men? There were men during this time and they were already taking wives! Why should this be so astonishing for it to be mentioned in Chapter 6?

Because, these men, that once began to "call on the name of the Lord", were considered spiritual "sons of God"...Just like we are today....If you and I fell into this situation of multiple wives these days, as spiritual sons of God we would have a verse written about us also, calling us the "sons of God' that went into the daughters of men, taking all which they chose...

No where else in the OT is this phrase used other than ANGELS. And according to you "given in marriage" is a sin, so these men were sinners for marrying women.

In fact go to Chap 5 and it shows men taking wives and living HUNDREDS OF YEARS...so this went on for quite a while...

Their fornications took a while to infuriate the Lord, just like these days...

So Adam and his sons were fornicators??? No where does Chapt 5 mention them fornicating. Let's recap because Sean split my post up...the "Sons of God" were men idea makes it seem as though this was a new event...they saw human women and married and had children. BUT we can see that the offspring of Adam, his Sons, were all already marrying women and having children

They did not suddenly decide to take wives in Ch 6 like it never happened before.

of course not....sins build up for Gods' wrath to occur...

Huh?

Reply in purple

Pressing-On · #**155** 09-09-2014, 06:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Praxeas

BUT this group of people called "Sons of God"...does that just refer to Noah and his 3 sons? They were the only sons of God?

And if so why separate this group "Sons of God" from Noah's group later?

You do have Genesis chapter 4 giving the lineage of Cain, who was ungodly. Then you have chapter 5 giving the lineage of Seth, who was godly. Chapter 6 speaks of marriages between the godly and ungodly, so I think we need to consider that.

FlamingZword · #**156** 09-09-2014, 06:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sean

AGAIN....4 There were GIANTS in the earth in those days

OK let us look at the scripture.
it says "There were giants in the earth in those days"

it does not say, "All the people were giants"

You are now saying that all the people in the pre-flood era were giants.

another issue is why the giants only lived in the land of Canaan.
If Noah and his sons were giants, how come only a small group retained their giant genes.

When Caleb espied the land, he acknowledge that there were giants in the Land, and he fought those giants and took the land away from them.
Caleb took on the biggest guys around, while the other tribes took on regular folks.

according to your theory there should be no giants around this time, yet they still existed.

Praxeas · #**157** 09-09-2014, 06:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Look at 2 Samuel 21:16. It says "sons of the giant"....

Sons of the giant - The “giant” here 2Sa_21:18, 2Sa_21:20, 2Sa_21:22 is “ha-Raphah,” whence, the “Rephaim” Gen_14:5; Deu_2:11. The sons of Ha-raphah, or Rephaim, are different from the “Nephilim,” or Giants Gen_6:4; Num_13:33. The sons of Anak were not strictly Rephaim, but Nephilim.

Raphah is the Hebrew word for Giants. Not a nationality. Once again you are making the same mistake of looking at the Hebrew word and not the story

2Sa 21:18 After this there was again war with the Philistines at Gob. Then Sibbecai the Hushathite struck down Saph, who was one of the descendants of the giants.

See it says "Descendants of the giants"

What does this person mean by "the giants"? How would they know what group this refers to?

Here they are
10 (The Emim formerly lived there, a people great and many, and tall as the Anakim. 11 Like the Anakim they are also counted as Rephaim, but the Moabites call them Emim.

The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. 2001 (Dt 2:10–11). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.

The Anakim were said to be of the race of Nephilim (as I showed earlier)

Here they are Giant people
11 (For only Og the king of Bashan was left of the remnant of the Rephaim. Behold, his bed was a bed of iron. Is it not in Rabbah of the Ammonites? Nine cubits was its length, and four cubits its breadth, according to the common cubit.)

The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. 2001 (Dt 3:11). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.

This group of Giants are said to be the same Group Moses defeated
12 all the kingdom of Og in Bashan, who reigned in Ashtaroth and in Edrei (he alone was left of the remnant of the Rephaim); these Moses had struck and driven out.

The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. 2001 (Jos 13:12). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.

Rephaim follows the flow of the Hebrew language to describe this race of large people

Praxeas · #**158** 09-09-2014, 06:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Of course it is not clear to you, because you don't agree. That's just how it goes, and that's okay. We don't have to agree.

Perhaps my background as a Catholic, and all of the superstition that is associated with that, makes we walk away from things that seem mystical or strange.

There are people who believe in aliens and Big Foot, and that's okay as well. To each his own.

Mystical? The entire bible is Mystical. Miraculous events. Fire from the sky. Glory clouds etc etc

Praxeas · #**159** 09-09-2014, 06:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

You do have Genesis chapter 4 giving the lineage of Cain, who was ungodly. Then you have chapter 5 giving the lineage of Seth, who was godly. Chapter 6 speaks of marriages between the godly and ungodly, so I think we need to consider that.

And?

That just supports my point further. Who were these Sons of God who just now in Chapt 6 noticed these human women?

If they were righteous how come only 8 were on the ark according to Sean's argument?

Neither Cain nor Adam were said to be fornicators rather than marrying wives

Sean · #**160** 09-09-2014, 06:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

OK let us look at the scripture.
it says "There were giants in the earth in those days"

it does not say, "All the people were giants"

It doesn't have to say "all the people were giants". It clearly says there WERE giants....It is a blanket statement about mankind(and it stands alone in the passage)...

You are now saying that all the people in the pre-flood era were giants.

Yes I am...It only stands to reason, given their longevity of age.

another issue is why the giants only lived in the land of Canaan.
If Noah and his sons were giants, how come only a small group retained their giant genes.

Because they stuck together in the mountains and did not marry shorter tribal folks....just like some African tribes have done these days.....All it takes is one shorter spouse and the shorter folks' genetics are infiltrating the descendants forever

When Caleb espied the land, he acknowledge that there were giants in the Land, and he fought those giants and took the land away from them.
Caleb took on the biggest guys around, while the other tribes took on regular folks.

according to your theory there should be no giants around this time, yet they still existed.

As I said above....these giants were the purebred from Noah's descendants