I wouldn't describe that as fear, that is their own form of discernment. I don't think it is fear, I think it is wanting to stay with Biblical theology. There is a reason it didn't make it into the cannon.
Upvote
0
Is the Book of Enoch true?
- Thread starter Sammy-San
- Start date
I wouldn't describe that as fear, that is their own form of discernment. I don't think it is fear, I think it is wanting to stay with Biblical theology. There is a reason it didn't make it into the cannon.
mikedsjr
Master Newbie
If you came in here and say, "sons of God are angels come down to marry human women", then certainly my first response would be,"where is your proof in Scripture"? Not only is the book of Enoch not inspired, there is no Christian body, RC or Protestant, which find it even has any authority for use in interpreting Scripture. You have no proof any of the information is true.
I would challenge any "Common sense" statements if they don't directly agree with Scripture, but I'm learning people don't care about context anymore. They are not content with Scripture is enough.
Upvote
0
mmksparbud
Well-Known Member
- Dec 3, 2011
- 17,312
- 6,821
- 73
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- SDA
- Marital Status
- Widowed
- Politics
- US-Others
No . scripture doesn't say any such foolish thing. Angels are not our kind, they are made higher than us--we can not mate with them--period. There are also people who believe that the bible says the earth is flat--which it doesn't. So, some people, way back when, believed the earth was flat, and because they believed something stupid, we're supposed to?!! Because some ancients people believed in this stupidity of angels mating with humans we're supposed to? Can a human mate with a gorilla and produce a half breed child? It'd be the same thing.--
Upvote
0
- Dec 19, 2010
- 25,665
- 33,065
- Faith
- Protestant
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Others
As much as I believe any other history book is true. I do not believe it is scripture if that is what you are really asking. I read history. And to me, that is different truth from scripture. I have the ability and the discernment to know the difference. I read that WWII lasted from 1939-1945. Is this true? Yes! Is it scripture? No! Do I not believe it is true because it is not scripture? How absurd would I be if I don't believe it? George Washington was the first President of the United States. Is this true? Absolutely! Is it scripture? No! Do I not believe it is true because it is not scripture? How absurd would I be if I don't believe it?
Upvote
0
But yet, if you watch the video I just posted above, the guy will tell you why he believes the Scriptures say just that. But, if you want to refuse to watch the video and even consider the possibility, well.... dunno what to tell you, other than one really shouldn't close their minds to the possibility that they might have the wrong idea.
If you have rebuttals to what the guy in the video says, then feel free to post them; I'd love to hear them. But so far... not one single person has done so.
EDIT: There are two different kinds of people:
1). The people who strive for the truth, who welcome debate, who are ready to hear input and new ideas, and compare their own views with the new ideas, and compare them against Scripture and are ready to change their views of what "truth" is based upon what happens in said examination,
2). The people who believe they already have the truth, and disregard everything to the contrary (and oftentimes refuse to even hear arguments/evidence for the contrary) and believe that their own understanding of scripture is infallible, despite the various issues that have been proven as far as translations go.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
mmksparbud
Well-Known Member
- Dec 3, 2011
- 17,312
- 6,821
- 73
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- SDA
- Marital Status
- Widowed
- Politics
- US-Others
I've heard this theory over and over and the reasons why people choose to believe something so contrary to God's command of "after it's kind." I didn't say I wouldn't see it, just that I already heard it before, but I'll probably watch it as soon as I get me some popcorn. And there is such a thing as just plain common sense---like do you honestly believe God created a race of beings that are only male (only male names are given to the angels that are mentioned in the bible)--but gave them the sexual apparatus and desire for mating but then gave them no way ever to use that "equipment"? There is no marriage or giving in marriage in heaven--according to Jesus. So you think God made billions of male angels, who were around for only He knows how long before any human females were around, all of them frustrated as all get out and possibly ending up gay out of that frustration??? Wow!! God doesn't make the unnecessary, He wouldn't give them that kind of frustration, He didn't create them to be fruitful and multiply, He created them as His messengers. Sexual "equipment" would not even be needed-that is only human, carnal thinking.
Upvote
0
But yet, angels are spiritual beings who can manifest in mortal (or, if you'd rather, "corporeal" or "physical" might be terms that fit better) bodies, as this had been done many times in Scripture. Sodom & Gomorrah, etc.
Angels (God's Angels, I mean) do not manifest in the mortal body to do such things (if they can manifest in a mortal body, what's stopping them from manifesting in a mortal body that's "functional" in that sense other than their loyalty to God?), but who are we to say that the fallen angels wouldn't engage in such acts? They're following their leader, and you know who that is, or at least I would hope so.
What would be the easiest way for Satan to disrupt God's plan, Pre-Flood? Why, none other than to corrupt Man's bloodline with something vile, perverse, and simply nasty. And he almost succeeded if it weren't for the fact that there were still 8 "pure" people left.
And as Dr. Missler points out... it gives us good reason as to why Joshua was ordered to wipe out every man, woman, and child. Where else in the Bible did God ever have anything against children? This, and the Flood, are the only two places where that happened. And He had the children wiped out because their bloodlines were corrupt.
And yes, please do watch that video. And like I said, I await your rebuttals/counter-arguments.
Upvote
0
mmksparbud
Well-Known Member
- Dec 3, 2011
- 17,312
- 6,821
- 73
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- SDA
- Marital Status
- Widowed
- Politics
- US-Others
They can "appear" human--not that they are human. We are the only ones that have been made in the image of God. They can "possess" a human body---that body remains human-if that body has sex--it will be human DNA that gets passed on--Satan can not become human--nor any other angel--they are what they are--appearance is only that--appearance. You want to believe that God would have billions of sex starved angels panting for human women to get created so they can release their pent up sexual desires on them, for untold eons, well---go right ahead--not the God I know. When Christ sent those demons into the pigs--did they become pigs and mate with the pigs??? Were there pig/angels created??
Yes, God said to destroy every man woman and child and also their cattle--He got something against cattle?? Do cattle sin? Were those cattle half angel?? Yes, blood lines can be corrupt--genetic tendencies get passed on, esp with inbreeding. Which had to be nixed later in to prevent that happening again. And when God's order to destroy everyone was not carried out--what happened?---500 years later you got Haman almost wiping out the Jewish nation. Why the cattle--don't know--that's what God wants, that's what God gets. Did God have something against the trees and grass of the pre flood planet? He have something against the flowers? It still does not address the problem that nature can not go against a direct command of God--"after it's kind"--Only scientists can do that! OK--I'll watch the stupid thing, even without popcorn, but I can tell you right now, there won't be anything I haven't heard before.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Ouch, such hostility...
There's no need to get hostile, truly. One should always welcome a potentially new viewpoint or evidence and not get hostile about protecting their current views.
My apologies for causing you to rise to anger over the issue; I never meant that to happen in the first place. I don't really understand why people are so set in stone that they think they know everything about what happened some 4,000+ years ago.
I could pick apart your paragraph but I'll just wait for you to watch it instead of further inciting your anger. My apologies, again, for causing you to get angry.
Upvote
0
mmksparbud
Well-Known Member
- Dec 3, 2011
- 17,312
- 6,821
- 73
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- SDA
- Marital Status
- Widowed
- Politics
- US-Others
Who's hostile??? Not me--quite the opposite--I find this quite humorous!!!
Except for right now---I just finished writing a lengthy post on this video and when I hit post reply up came a I must be signed in to do that (which I had been) and my whole post disappeared and I have no idea how to get it back---do you? right now that has me ticked--but not this thread--I have a bad neck and back and the thought of rewriting is more than I can handle right now!! (I have a home traction unit and I quite literally have to hang myself everyday to get some relief from this stupid neck!) Anybody know how to bring up a lost post??? I thought they got saved somehow.
Upvote
0
Well, the tone in which you were writing your posts suggested anger/frustration/irritation.
As for lost posts... I don't know. Normally, they are saved, but the moment you clicked the "Post Reply" button, it should have brought it back up. But yet I've found that this doesn't always work, and so when I know I will be making a long post, I will open Notepad, type it up in there (saving occasionally), and then I will copy/paste from Notepad into whatever Forum/Thread/Etc I am posting on.
Upvote
0
mmksparbud
Well-Known Member
- Dec 3, 2011
- 17,312
- 6,821
- 73
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- SDA
- Marital Status
- Widowed
- Politics
- US-Others
I've lost so many that I think I will start doing that--it's ok when you loose just a small post, but a long one is very tiring to repeat---
I know about my tone---it's a problem I've had all my life--I have an overactive sarcasm button---I've tried to curb it--but it just sneaks up on me and before you know it--smack--there it is. Plus I have a very active sense of humor and the 2 combined can be a bit much!! My husband says just one word when I start doing it to him----"TONE!"---
I am resting my neck, and my tone, before I try posting again---I will say this much----I will never listen to another one of these again---not one thing new--well--yah, there was--his take on the Nebuchadnezzar image. The clay and iron and seed mingling. Sorry, but that one touched my buttons also. He implied the fallen angel seed again and it isn't that.
The image was a prophetic picture of the coming kingdoms of the world--they are self explanatory --Babylon, Medo-Persian, Greek, Roman---the feet of clay and iron were the 10 tribes of barbarians that took over the Roman Empire and became England, France, Germany and so on---throughout history someone has always tried to unify them into one power, at one point every royal house in Europe was related by marriage!! Even that "mingling of seeds" did not work. God said it wouldn't happen and it hasn't, Hitler was the last one to try. Someone, or group, will try again, no doubt. They've tried it with the Euro.
Upvote
0
mmksparbud
Well-Known Member
- Dec 3, 2011
- 17,312
- 6,821
- 73
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- SDA
- Marital Status
- Widowed
- Politics
- US-Others
OK---let's see if I can get back to this--Kinda hard, been through this soooo many times. Have not been convinced so far.
Tell ya what---why not point out the things that you find compelling--you said you could pick apart my paragraph--so why not start there?--pick it apart and let's see what we end up with. I'll check back later, I have a very weird lifestyle as I never know when I will be able to go to sleep, sometimes I'm up all night, I never know when the nap attacks will hit!
Tell ya what---why not point out the things that you find compelling--you said you could pick apart my paragraph--so why not start there?--pick it apart and let's see what we end up with. I'll check back later, I have a very weird lifestyle as I never know when I will be able to go to sleep, sometimes I'm up all night, I never know when the nap attacks will hit!
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Very well, I'll start by listing the things I found compelling, though as a quick summary as I don't really have time to watch the whole video all over again to get every little part.
A small list:
1). In the original Hebrew (and the Septuagint), the term "Bene-Elohim" (sp?) is ONLY used for Angels... and the people who found the women fair and went "in unto them" (this phrase is only used for sexual relations). That's pretty slam-dunk right there, BUT...
2). One of the New Testament writers referred to this in Jude 6-7 (the Angels that "kept not their first estate" and were like the cities that "gave themselves over to fornication and went after strange flesh"), and also 2 Peter 4:4-5 strongly implies the same thing, that the "Angels who sinned" but were cast down into Tartarus (or Hades) and "[God] spared not the old world, but saved Noah".
3). He also shoots the idea in the foot that the Line of Seth was holier than the Line of Cain, becuase God didn't save "the Sethites", he saved Noah and his immediate family only which means He also killed the Sethites.
4). If Sin was the only reason God flooded the world... then as Dr. Missler said, we better get our lifejackets on, because the ridiculous amounts of filth and violence in the world today would surely rival what was going on back then. How about WWI and WWII? All of the death, Hitler exterminating His chosen people, etc? Even THAT wasn't enough for a global catastrophe. No, what was happening in the Days of Noah was far, far, FAR worse. The idea that Fallen Angels were taking mortal bodies to corrupt the bloodline of Man would point to such a reason as to why God felt he had to annihilate ALL life on Earth, except for that on the Ark.
We'll start with those points. Now, your paragraph....
Where in Scripture does it say that Fallen Angels are not capable of taking a mortal body that cannot function in a reproductive way? And Angels do not possess people, neither do Fallen Angels do -- demon spirits do that. A lot of people make the assumption that "Fallen Angels = Demons" but... I don't think so. The Bible doesn't say for certain, but Angels (and I assume Fallen Angels too) appear in tangible bodies, and never attempt to possess anyone, but yet Demons are always looking to possess people (Christ cast several out in His ministry alone, and His disciples did the same). Or, maybe, if a Fallen Angel were destroyed, THEN they become a Demon Spirit.... maybe.
Remember, the theory we're talking about, is that Fallen Angels did this. The ones who rebelled along with Satan and were cast out of Heaven when Satan fell. I don't think it was Lust that caused them to do this, though the Bible says that the women were "fair to look upon" so they certainly indulged themselves. IMO, Satan wanted to destroy Mankind by corrupting the Human Genome and it almost worked, 'cept God had a plan as He always does. That plan was Noah and his Ark.
As for his Loyal Angels, they wouldn't have such lust, because they don't have sin, because they didn't rebel against God.
Again, Demons != Fallen Angels.
How do we know they weren't cross-breeding cattle along with everything else they were doing? Just because they don't have labs and test tubes don't mean they weren't also crossbreeding certain species like we do with dogs today.
Joshua wiped out all the races of Giants that were there in that day. Tell me something... we have Gigantism today... however that's caused by a growth defect, a certain hormone in the body. People who have this are crippled. Not in the book of Joshua, these dudes were warriors and fearsome ones at that. They weren't some lean lanky guy who will die in 5 years if he doesn't have emergency surgery to correct the problem. We're talking about able-bodied warriors. Why do you suppose that is, that there were 10ft+ tall people in those days? Why do you suppose God wanted every single last one of them wiped out, even the children? Why weren't there giants anywhere else other than Canaan that the Bible speaks of? (obviously there are Giants even in Native American legends that Dr. Missler mentioned, but they were seemingly wiped out too... do you think God only works in the Eastern Hemisphere?)
He flooded the planet to rid it of every last corrupt human with the Nephilim bloodline. Sadly, the trees and plants were collateral damage, so to speak.
Actually, you don't need a scientist to crossbreed dogs, or donkeys/horses to create a mule (and God Only Knows what else they were doing this to in Canaan pre-Joshua). However, in a lot of these cases, the result is sterile. Unless, of course, you knew exactly what you were doing, which surely these Fallen Angels did.
Upvote
0
mmksparbud
Well-Known Member
- Dec 3, 2011
- 17,312
- 6,821
- 73
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- SDA
- Marital Status
- Widowed
- Politics
- US-Others
G5207
υἱός
uihos
Thayer Definition:
1) a son
1a) rarely used for the young of animals
1b) generally used of the offspring of men
1c) in a restricted sense, the male offspring (one born by a father and of a mother)
1d) in a wider sense, a descendant, one of the posterity of any one
1d1) the children of Israel
1d2) sons of Abraham
1e) used to describe one who depends on another or is his follower
1e1) a pupil
2) son of man
2a) term describing man, carrying the connotation of weakness and mortality
2b) son of man, symbolically denotes the fifth kingdom in Dan_7:13 and by this term its humanity is indicated in contrast with the barbarity and ferocity of the four preceding kingdoms (the Babylonian, the Median and the Persian, the Macedonian, and the Roman) typified by the four beasts. In the book of Enoch (2nd Century) it is used of Christ.
2c) used by Christ himself, doubtless in order that he might intimate his Messiahship and also that he might designate himself as the head of the human family, the man, the one who both furnished the pattern of the perfect man and acted on behalf of all mankind. Christ seems to have preferred this to the other Messianic titles, because by its lowliness it was least suited to foster the expectation of an earthly Messiah in royal splendour.
3) son of God
3a) used to describe Adam (Luk_3:38)
3b) used to describe those who are born again (Luk_20:36) and of angels and of Jesus Christ
3c) of those whom God esteems as sons, whom he loves, protects and benefits above others
3c1) in the OT used of the Jews
3c2) in the NT of Christians
3c3) those whose character God, as a loving father, shapes by chastisements (Heb_12:5-8)
3d) those who revere God as their father, the pious worshippers of God, those who in character and life resemble God, those who are governed by the Spirit of God, repose the same calm and joyful trust in God which children do in their parents (Rom_8:14, Gal_3:26 ), and hereafter in the blessedness and glory of the life eternal will openly wear this dignity of the sons of God. Term used preeminently of Jesus Christ, as enjoying the supreme love of God, united to him in affectionate intimacy, privy to his saving councils, obedient to the Father’s will in all his acts
Part of Speech: noun masculine
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: apparently a primary word
Citing in TDNT: 8:334, 1206
Also:
G5206
υἱοθεσία
uihothesia
Thayer Definition:
1) adoption, adoption as sons
1a) that relationship which God was pleased to establish between himself and the Israelites in preference to all other nations
1b) the nature and condition of the true disciples in Christ, who by receiving the Spirit of God into their souls become sons of God
1c) the blessed state looked for in the future life after the visible return of Christ from heaven
Part of Speech: noun feminine
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: from a presumed compound of G5207 and a derivative of G5087
Citing in TDNT: 8:397, 1206
Also:
bên
BDB Definition:
1) son, grandson, child, member of a group
1a) son, male child
1b) grandson
1c) children (plural - male and female)
1d) youth, young men (plural)
1e) young (of animals)
1f) sons (as characterisation, i.e. sons of injustice [for unrighteous men] or sons of God [for angels])
1g) people (of a nation) (plural)
1h) of lifeless things, i.e. sparks, stars, arrows (figuratively)
1i) a member of a guild, order, class
Part of Speech: noun masculine
A Related Word by BDB/Strong’s Number: from H1129
Same Word by TWOT Number: 254
The only definition of this term as being to angels is 7th on the list of Hebrew definitions. Yes--it can mean angels at times, but not the ONLY definition. If one is determined to make it mean that, then choose that definition. There is not one statement in any of the bible that states that angels are able to reproduce. As I said, they are only male ones mentioned. The name angel means messenger. And is also the SAME word used for human messengers. As when Jacob sent messengers to his brother Esau--the word is the very same word that is translated angel. (mal-akh). Anywhere the word angel is used, the actual
word mal-akh is the word and there is no difference between messenger of God or human messenger. God's messengers have different names, or classification--seraphim and cherubim and the archangels (covering cherub) which is what Lucifer was--the covering cherub. Cherubs were depicted on the Ark, one on each side of the seat of God--and they had wings, each wing was 5 cubits long (the ones on the ark, that is) It doesn't say if all angels had wings, or just the seraphim's and cherubim's. The seraphim had 6 wings. Are these the only classifications?? Doesn't say.
I'll divide this or it will be too long--
Upvote
0
You're using the Septuagint to define "Sons of God" in Genesis 6:2? Just trying to follow what you're saying.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
mikedsjr
Master Newbie
Xavith, what Bible are you reading for #2. I do not get the implication of angels in the verses you referenced as you did.
#1 so are you a Hebrew scholar?
I only recognize people quoting Hebrew or Greek who actually know syntax to the languages. Everyone else is just dangerous.
#3 was Noah from the line of Seth?
#4. Pure speculation.
#1 so are you a Hebrew scholar?
I only recognize people quoting Hebrew or Greek who actually know syntax to the languages. Everyone else is just dangerous.
#3 was Noah from the line of Seth?
#4. Pure speculation.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
