Results 201 - 220 of 221
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Jesusman Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
201 | Are the "sons of God" pre-Fall children? | Gen 6:2 | Jesusman | 30449 | ||
Answer this for me. "Sons of God" denotes a meaning that the person or persons is obedient to the will of God the Father. If that is so, and also concidering Jesus' statement in Matthew that angels "neither marry nor are given in marriage", how can these fallen angels, who have been disobedient, still be concidered obedient? On top of that, the references you gave say nothing about angels. It says that the "Sons of God" are gathered before God. In fact, show us one verse that clearly says that Angels are called the "sons of God". Jesusman |
||||||
202 | The Sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4 | Genesis | Jesusman | 30447 | ||
Hello, Welcome to the free for all! :) Just kidding! Anyway, to get on to the topic at hand. To answer your questions about the Niphillim of Genesis 6 and of Numbers 13, they cannot be of the ancestry. Why? The Flood. The flood separates the Two. The Niphillim of Genesis 6 is pre-flood. It isn'e safe to assume that this was post-flood, because the events leading up to the flood and God's reasons for the flood isn't explained until AFTER the Niphillim are mentioned. This proves that the Niphillim and the events of Genesis 6:1-4 are pre-flood. As for the "After what", this is in reference to the "Sons" marrying the "Daughters". The Niphillim were already in existance before this took place, and existed after this happened. As for Job 1 and 2, yes, it is possible that it is a heavenly meeting. However, you must deal with the following questions. 1) If it is heaven, then why is Satan there, since he was kicked out of heaven? 2) If these are angels, then why does Job become the immediate topic? Why not one of the angels? 3) If these are angels, why is there no reference calling angels "sons of God"? Especially when Hebrews 1:5 says otherwise? As of the "mighty men of Old and Men of renown", they were obviously the offspring of the "Sons" and "Daughters". I clarified much of this in my original post. Jesus Loves You! Jesusman |
||||||
203 | The Sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4 | Genesis | Jesusman | 30445 | ||
Hello Steve, Well, I speak from experience when I talk about the NASB being the most literally accurate translation to date. Not only do I have a BA in Biblical Languages in which I spent four plus years examining and translating the original texts into english, then comparing them to the existing english translations, but I sold Bibles for over a year. On top of that, I am persuing a Masters in Exegesis and Hermaneutics. NO, I don't think God was suprised. I think he new exactly what Satan wanted. As for Satan's ability to attack Job, I think he needed God's permission first, which strengthens God's authority. Jesus Loves You! Jesusman |
||||||
204 | The Sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4 | Genesis | Jesusman | 30443 | ||
As I said in my original post, they could've been mentioned merely to give a time of reference. All it says is that they were there at that time. I could be talking about American history and say something like, "The Dodgers were playing in Brooklyn at the time." From that reference, you would know that I am talking about something that happened during the 1960's. Whether or not it is about baseball would have nothing to do about the discussion at hand. As for Job, A believer isn't only one who confesses Christ. During the Old Testament periods, a believer was one who was obedient to the Law and to God. That is why Abraham is refered to as believer in many places in the New Testament. Besides, there is enough evidence in early Genesis and throughout Job to deduce that there were some who believed and were obedient to God. Noah, Enoch, Seth, Job, and others all existed before the flood during this "wicked time". Besides, the historical sections (Genesis - Esther) of the Bible is arranged in chronological order. As for Science, Why do you fear it? Science is as much of a tool to use in our studies as a Bible dictionary or commentary. Not only that, But the Bible is worthless if it contradicts the facts. On a further related note, do you honestly expect me to believe in something that contradicts the facts? Let me lay down the theory about the angels in Genesis 6. Angels, who are not supposed to be able to marry, came to earth against God's commands, had Sex with humans, had children, who turned out to be superhuman giants, and then disappeared off the face of the earth. That's a bigger fantasy than Evolution. You expect me to take that on faith? Get real! You brought up Paul. Tell me, did he ever tell anyone to believe what he said upon faith alone? No. In fact, he praised the Barean Church when they researched his teachings according to the Scriptures of the day, and told them to keep it up. John tells us in his first epistle to "test". You will not find it said anywhere in the Bible that you are to believe something without a few facts supporting why you should believe it. Jesusman |
||||||
205 | Why have J W's changed John 1:1 | John | Jesusman | 30431 | ||
I agree, Hank. They are just trying to deny the deity of Christ. However, in my experience the more technical and thorough explaination usually is what is sought after, which is why I gave the answer I gave. Also, the very core of the issue concerning the J. W. doctrine and our doctrine is whether or not Jesus is God. By merely saying that they are attempting to deny the deity of Christ doesn't solve the problem. However, by going into the matters concerning the Greek text, you solve many of the inherant problems and narrow down the field. J. W.'s are known for using the Greek to support many of their weird doctrines. I'm trying to show how they are incorrectly using the greek. Jesus Loves You! Jesusman |
||||||
206 | "ONCE SAVED ALWAYS SAVED"!!! | Matt 22:37 | Jesusman | 30428 | ||
Johnny, You missed my point. If we are to remain in Salvation, as you seem to be saying, then we must work for it. However, Scripture clearly teaches that Salvation is a gift from God and that we do not work for it. Jesusman |
||||||
207 | The Sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4 | Genesis | Jesusman | 30222 | ||
Hello Steve, As a point of clarity, I use the NASB as my primary translation, unless otherwise noted. I use the NASB due to it's literal accuracy. You brought up Psalms 8 and the idea that angels are superior than man. However, in Hebrews 1:14, we have the statement that angels are to minister the saved. With that in mind, it is important to remember that Jesus is higher in authority than the angels, and that we too will carry the title of "Sons of God" as Jesus carries. As a result, Man is of higher authority than the angles, especially the Saved. I don't remember where it is, and I've been looking all night, but I remember reading a verse that specifically teaches that Man is higher than the angels. Also, in the NASB, man is listed as being below "God" in this passage, not the angels or heavenly beings, which corrosponds to the rest of Scripture. As for Job 1 and 2, and the possibility it being angels, the primary reason why it says "angels of God" in these passages is because one of the copies of the Septuagint has it in there in place of "sons". Still, even if the original text placed "angels" in the text rather than "sons", it still would support the notion that Angels are the "Sons of God", which is the true matter throughout this whole thread. As for the challenge between God and Satan, remember, it was Satan who made the Challenge, not God. God merely permitted it to happen. As for the meeting of God and Satan, and being infront of angels, I have a few questions about that. Satan was kicked out of Heaven and from among the angels. He lost his place in the heavens. If so, then why is he there with them, before God? Besides, the passage says that Satan was among the group, and that he was roaming around upon the earth. Then we have Job becoming the topic of the discussion between them, as if he was right in their line of sight, which would place him with in the gathered group, specifically in chapter one. So, I ask again, if these are angels that are gathered, then why is Job and Satan there? The only explaination is that the group is that of human believers who are worshipping God, and Satan just happens to come near when he is summoned by God. Do you see my point? Jesus Loves You! Jesusman |
||||||
208 | Same old question: man or Man? | John 1:1 | Jesusman | 30211 | ||
I didn't have my Greek NT handy when I wrote the reply. So I had to wing it, so to speak. Thanks for the correction. However, even though there isn't a definite article, and if there isn't a corrosponding noun with it, then the rules of substantival usage could still be applied. If I remember correctly, that is. Jesus Loves You! Jesusman |
||||||
209 | "ONCE SAVED ALWAYS SAVED"!!! | Matt 22:37 | Jesusman | 30131 | ||
So, if a Christian can lose his salvation, then that means that God isn't as powerful as he claims, that it is up to us to save ourselves, and that we have bragging rights if we make it to heaven. Therefore, we are just as good on our own as we are with God. After all, God isn't powerful enough. Correct? Jesusman |
||||||
210 | The Sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4 | Genesis | Jesusman | 30125 | ||
Hello tuli, I don't think you clearly understand what I am trying to say. Yes, the Anakim in Numbers and Deuteronomy are humans. That is beyond refuting. However, they are called "niphillim" due to their great size. In the post-flood passages, these giants are called men. However, the pre-flood giants, cannot be the same men due to the flood itself. The only people that survived the flood was Noah, his three sons, and their wives. The only animals to survive were those on the ark. All other life before the flood was destroyed. So, the anakim cannot be the Niphillim of Genesis 6. It is not only biblically impossible, but scientifically impossible as well. Therefore, the Niphillim of Genesis 6, must be either a different group of giant humans or something inhuman that is giant in stature. Now, Genesis 6 does not hint in anyway that the Niphillim are human or not, just that they are there. Also, we must adhere to the science pertaining to this area. Archeology has yet to uncover giant human remains dating back to the period of the Flood. The only remains that are giant in stature that can be found are dinosaurs. Therefore, the Niphillim of Genesis 6 is a totally different group than those of Numbers 13. As a result, Niphillim goes from being a name of a tribe, nationality, or species, to being a term of description, which is the only explaination that fully fits with both usages of "niphillim". As for the usage of Science, Science in it's truest sense is not to contradict the Scripture, but should be used to explain Scripture. Science should not be feared nor shunned but should be used to aid in the study of Scripture. As for Job, again, I'm not sure if you understand what it is that I am trying to convey. Notice in both Job chapter 1 and 2, that the "sons of God" are gathered before God. This can be taken two ways. 1) they are physically in front of God. 2) they are Spiritually in front of God. The most common meaning is the former of the two. However, I believe it is the latter of the two. Just because they are gathered before God in Spirit does not neccessarily conclude that they are there physically as well. Now, if the "sons" are angels, then it is that they are gathered physically before God. However, since angels are never called "sons" directly, then the explaination then turns to those who are directly called "sons", namely human believers. As a result of this shift, the gathering changes from being a physical gathering to being a spiritual gathering, as in worship. We, Christians, do the same thing every sunday morning. We gather ourselves before the Lord to present ourselves before him. So, this is a gathering for Worship. Now, we turn to Job, God, and Satan. Job immediately becomes the topic of the conversation between God and Satan, as if Job is among the worshippers. Now, Satan is physically before God, because they are talking to one another. Job and the other "sons" are spiritually before God. Let me explain this through the use of an analogy. Two high school baseball coaches are talking about the coming game between them. The team of the home team coach is currently practicing on the field. Now, which is more likely? That the home team coach is going to start talking and bragging about his star pitcher with the 95 mph fast ball? Or is the home team coach going to start talking about the pitcher of another team all together? He is going to start talking about his own pitcher who is already in the field showing his stuff. Correct? Well, I think the same thing, or similar at least, is happening in Job 1 and 2. As for Job 38:7, I believe that "morning stars" is in reference to angels. Angels are called stars in other passages throughout the Bible. However, I believe that "sons of God" is still in reference to human believers. For instance, why would the writer say, putting it into meaning, "When the angels sang together, and all the angels shouted for Joy ..."? Sounds repeative, right? Also, there really isn't any precidence in Job for such a repeation in meaning to happen. It doesn't entirely make sense. However, if it were to mean, "when the angels sang together, and all the believers shouted for joy ...", then there would be a clear understanding and less confusion. Also, it would bring emphasis upon the true meaning of the book of Job, that God is supreme over all creation. I hope this clarifies things. Jesus Loves You! Jesusman |
||||||
211 | the divinity of Christ | John 1:1 | Jesusman | 29497 | ||
Actually, I'm not shocked. For that matter, why is anybody shocked? As long as the Bible remains, there will always be someone to come along who will question it, it's teachings, and it's claims. This is just another one of those times. As for my faith, I'm Christian. I believe what the Bible literally teaches and I teach what the Bible literally teaches. I believe that Jesus Christ is the One and true son of God, come to us to save us of our sins, and that he is God the Son of the Tri-une God-head. I believe that he died for our sins, was buried, and was ressurrected on the third day by his own power as according to the prophecies. I believe that the Bible is the Inerrant, Holy Word of God, inspired by the Holy Spirit, and divinely brought to us through human means. Does that answer your question? Jesus Loves You! Jesusman |
||||||
212 | Why was the man speechless? | Matt 22:11 | Jesusman | 29495 | ||
There could be any number of reasons. Maybe he was awestruck by the amount of food there was? The text really doesn't clarify. Jesusman |
||||||
213 | The Sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4 | Genesis | Jesusman | 29493 | ||
Ok? About the Niphillim or Giants, as they are also known as, there is no relationship between them and the Sons and Daughters. They are merely mentioned that they were in the land in those days. The term Niphillim is only used three times in the Bible in only two passages: Genesis 6:4 and Numbers 13:33. Now, It is impossible for the Niphillim in Genesis to be the same or ancestors of the Niphillim in Numbers. Why? There is a giant, global, and wet event that takes place between the two: the Great Flood. The Bible records that all life, aside from those on the ark, was destroyed. Therefore, the two groups cannot be linked in any other way than just termanology. That leads me to believe that "Niphillim" is a descriptive term given to those who are giant in stature, fierce in attitude, and has a tendancy to stomp on their enemies and prey. This is what "niphillim" means in it's basic sense. Also, given the descriptions in Numbers of the Anakim, it just follows that "Niphillim" is used to give them a name which the other Israelites could relate to. It's as if a little 5 year-old girl sees a roaring Lion at the Zoo and calls it a "kitty!" The Lion is not a "kitty". It's a Lion. It may be related to a "kitty" in physical appearance, but it is still different than a "kitty". You get my point. Another point that I should make clear, is that the Niphillim are not the offspring. The Language does not support that in any way. The mighty men of old and men of renown are the offspring of the Sons and the Daughters. The offspring and the Niphillim are two different groups. All I am saying about the Niphillim in genesis is that they cannot be the offspring. There isn't any support for it. The only support that can be given is that they are point of reference, which I explain in my original post. Also, I don't think that the Genesis Niphillim are human. Scientifically speaking. If they were humans, then why hasn't science uncovered any giant human fossils? The only giant fossils that have been uncovered are dinosaurs. Now, I leave you to put the rest together. As for Job, notice that the Sons of God "came to present themselves before the Lord". Now, what is it that every Christian does for morning Worship? They present themselves before God. Correct? Not only that, but Job immediately becomes the topic of conversation. Which gives support for them being humans and Job being among them. Then there is Satan being there. Satan was kicked out of heaven. If these are angels before God in heaven, why is Satan there? All of those together point to a time of worship among the human believers of God on earth at the time that Job was written, which is believed to have been during the early parts of Genesis. Then you have the reoccurance in Job chapter two. Not only that, but never, no where in the Bible are angels called specifically the sons of God. With all of those factors together, the Sons in Job 1 and 2 are possibly human believers who are annually worshipping God. As for Sodom and the Angels, true, Angels have appeared as flesh. Even God appeared as flesh before the coming of Jesus. That doesn't support anything. Further more, you have Jesus' statement that angels are not given into marriage nor do they marry. Mostly, this is due to God's will. Now, even if angels are called "Sons of God", which they never are, if they came and married human females, they would be in violation of God's will, and no longer be called his "sons", but would be demons. Psalms 104 is merely describing the awsome power that God has. It doesn't support the idea that angels are his "sons", which is the true point to all of this. As for Hebrews chapter one, read it in detail. The whole chapter is devoted to Christ being more than an angel and also comparing us to angels as well. In hebrews 1:7, the author comes right out and asks "To which of the angels did He ever say, 'you are My son, today I have begotten you'?" The answer is obvious. None of them. Then you have verse 14 saying that angels are nothing more than ministering spirits, sent out to render service for those who will inherit salvation. The definition of a "son of God" is simple. It is one who is obedient to the will of the Father. Now, we have three groups clearly identified as "Sons of God". 1) Jesus Christ: Matthew 16:16 2) Israel: Hosea 1:10; 11:1 3) Christians: Romans 8:12-17 I give you this challenge. Find a verse which clearly identifies Angels as being the "Sons of God". By that I mean, a verse that has angels and "sons of God" in the same verse referring to each other. Jesus Loves You! Jesusman |
||||||
214 | the divinity of Christ | John 1:1 | Jesusman | 29216 | ||
The divinity of Christ being questioned? What's new about that? We are already combatting that. It's the same argument the non-christians have been saying since Christ first walked the earth, just in a different format. Jesusman |
||||||
215 | How important is your Church? | Bible general Archive 1 | Jesusman | 29192 | ||
Is not the entire collection of believers called "Church"? "Church" is the term given to the people as a whole, not the building or the small sect that you currently migrate with. It should not be a factor as to which group of believers you are with as long as they are being true the Word of God. Jesusman |
||||||
216 | Questions about blessing others - take 2 | Matt 10:13 | Jesusman | 29109 | ||
Hello Love Fountain, Happy New Year to you as well. The sight is www.edepot.com, and it was the Christian forum. Edepot has many forums to visit ranging from many different topics. One being Christianity. I have recently left that forum. I do not plan to go back, unless it gets a major cleaning. Jesus Loves You! Jesusman |
||||||
217 | IS PRODUCING"GOLD DUST"@CHURCH A GENUINE | NT general Archive 1 | Jesusman | 29101 | ||
No I haven't. Has the slow baffoon in make-up been here? Jesusman |
||||||
218 | IS PRODUCING"GOLD DUST"@CHURCH A GENUINE | NT general Archive 1 | Jesusman | 28943 | ||
Hey Art, It's me, Jman. Don't forget what John the Beloved says in 1 John 3:1. "Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see if whether or not they are of God." Following that verse, he goes into what a spirit of God would do, say, and act. Jesusman |
||||||
219 | How did Nephilims come into existance? | Bible general Archive 1 | Jesusman | 27001 | ||
Angels? Sorry, doesn't fit. Look at my note on Genesis 6:1-4 about the identity of the Sons of God. It will explain most of this for you. As for the Niphillim being the children of the Sons of God and Daughters of Men, you need to read the passage again. It clearly says that the Niphillim were on the earth when the Sons of God came to the Daughters of Men, and that the Niphillim continued to exist after that. So, the Niphillim weren't the offspring, they are given as a time reference so that you may know when this even took place. The original audience for Genesis would have clearly understood the reference. The offspring were the Mighty men of Old and Men of Renown, Not the Niphillim. Jesusman |
||||||
220 | The Sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4 | Genesis | Jesusman | 26385 | ||
First, I'm not going to quote the verses. I will provide the references so that you may follow along in your own Bible. I'll be utilizing the NASB translation. Genesis 6:1-4 let's get into the heart of the matter. Namely, who are the "sons of God." They are not angels, nor spirit beings possessing the human bodies. Turn to Hebrews chapter 1. This chapter gives one of the best and most important speaches about angels. Amazingly, I have never heard anyone refer to this passage when talking about the "Sons of God' being angels. Notice in verse 4, angels come into the picture. The writer begins by talking about God sending Jesus, then shifts to angels. in verse 5, The writer asks if God ever claimed the angels as his sons. he is asking these questions in a manner in which the answer is obvious. No! As he continues to compair Jesus to angels, he says, that angels are servants, ministers, have no power or authority over Jesus and mankind, and have no bodies. In verse 14, he says that angels are spirits, sent out to render service to the ones inheriting salvation. This passage removes the possibility of angels taking human form to mate with humans. Now, turn to Matthew 22:23-33. This is one of the tests put to Jesus by the Sadducees. This time, they ask Jesus about a woman who has had seven husbands. When she dies, to which brother will she be wife of in heaven? Jesus then answers there is no marriage nor the giving of marriage in heaven. They will be as the angels are. Basically that angels never marry nor are given in marriage. Therefore, angels did not come to earth and mate with humans. let's take a look at Job 1:6; and 2:1, both refer to the "sons of God" gathering themselves before God. Satan comes among them and the subject turns to Job. Now, because Job immediately becomes the topic of the discussion. This leads me to think that the "sons of God" in these passages aren't angel. I think that it is in reference to the descendants of Seth. What does nearly every Christian in todays world do on Sundays or Saturdays? Worship God. Because the "Sons of God" are mentioned twice as gathering before God, this leads me to think that it was a regular occurrance, and a time of worship. Turn to Genesis 4. What are Cain and Abel doing? They are making offerings to the Lord. The tone and language is such that God is there before them. So. in Job, it is reasonable and likely that the "Sons of God" are those of the line of Seth. Concidering that Job was believed to have been written during the time before Noah just strengthens my thoughts. Jude 6-7 is often quoted for supporting the notion that Angels came to earth and married humans. The only part of Jude that is referring to angels is Jude 6. Jude 7 is talking about those who he referenced in the earlier parts of the chapter, and starts a whole new context. The context isn't angels, but those who have defied the Lord and revolted against him. The only reference to angels is where they left their natural domain. Upon leaving, God chained them in darkness to be kept there until the day of Judgement. Therefore, they aren't a factor. There isn't support for angels marrying humans. Therefore, with no scriptural backing, I reject the idea that angels are the "Sons of God" in Genesis 6. So, who are they. The decendants of Seth. Also, the "sons of God" carries a meaning of a person who is obedient to the will of God. Before I continue with this thought, it is pertanent to remind you that the Bible ultimately points to Jesus. In fact, all of creation points to Jesus Christ. Jesus is the focus point of the universe. With that said, it is little wonder that Jesus is called the "Son of God". Demons, Satan, Peter, and many others called him that. Jesus even made the claim. It is my belief that the Genesis 6:1-4 passage of the "Sons of God" is a prophecy. it is prophecying that the Messiah, called "The Son of God", will come from the lineage of Seth. In Luke 3:23-38, it shows that Jesus came from the line of Seth. Also, It is prophecying the coming church. Turn to Romans 8. Beginning in Romans 8:12, notice what Paul says about the "Sons of God". He says, in verse 14, that those who are lead by the Holy Spirit are the Sons of God. Then in verses 15-16 that we are the children of God, adopted through the Holy Spirit. Look at 1 John 3:1-12. Here John begins with the same declaration that Paul stated in Romans. "We are the Children of God." In fact, all through out the New Testament, we are called this. It is my belief that Genesis 6:1-4 points to us as well as the Christ. In a sense, we, through adoption, carry on the lineage of Seth and Jesus Christ. I do appologize for the length. Jesusman |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ] Next > Last [12] >> |