[greenbear]

Originally Posted by tonybones2112

Sister, Dave is not the only one who don;t believe angels mated with human women. We had a discussion of it based on Scripture, here in the forum, there are several factors don't sit right. I mean it makes a great scifi/horror story, but I don't see the purpose or even any evidence that God created angels with genitalia or would even allow them to do this with human women. Too many KJV believers who would never go to the Greek or Hebrew go to the Hebrew with the "nephilim" and "fallen ones". Like fervent KJV defender Dr. Ruckman goes to the Hebrew on the "gap" theory. The teaching is that the son's of God, who were angels, made wives of women, and produced giants. Then on of them was a relative of one of Noah's daughter in laws or possibly his wife, as it says also "after that". These giants were "mighty" and men of "renown". "renown" is defined in the Scriptures as "famous" most of all, and not necessarily evil. I think here are the roots of Jupiter, Zeus, Apollo, famous men who were later worshipped as gods. Paul says there are things that become sound doctrine and then there are fables. I think the Legend Of The Fornicating Angels is a fable, like "Lilith", the demon wife of Adam, or Satan copulating with Eve to produce Cain..

Dave Hunt was a pretty solid NIV man who used the KJV to support maybe a better reading of something he wanted to say. He was a Cherry-Pecker, like I have seen Gloria Copeland do with 5 versions of the bible on a podium. First book I ever read was The God Makers, about Mormons. I think he's old, physically ill(prostate cancer) and tired. He made the statement that even though he has not read Gail Ripplinger's books defending the KJV, she is still wrong. Real erudite scholarship. Though I have never met you, I think you are too tall for a woman.

We admire men and women of the faith, nearly always they will let us down some wayor other. Even I, a walking Scriptural encyclopedia, am not always right, yet I am never wrong

Grace and peace

Apollos

Dave Hunt: "I just can't believe..."
quoted to my best recollection on a radio broadcast

tonybones: "there are several factors don't sit right"
"I don't see the purpose "
no "evidence that God created angels with genitalia"
"or would even allow them to do this with human women."

I respectfully propose to you that these comments reveal that you have biased presuppositions about this topic. That is not a good place to start and a nearly impossible starting point if the topic requires "pulling together" scriptures and using reason to make sense of what has been revealed to us.

I believe this is a better place to begin a fruitful study of any topic contained in God's perfect word:

Gal 4:30 Nevertheless what saith the scripture?

Isa 28:9 Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts. 28:10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:

Amos 3.7: Surely the Lord GOD will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets.

Dan 2:22 He revealeth the deep and secret things: he knoweth what is in the darkness, and the light dwelleth with him.

Isa 1:18 Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD

We must also consider all possible interpretations of the body of scripture dealing with this topic and which one best fits. In this case, I believe that understanding that Gen 6:1-2 does say that fallen angels mated with human women and their offspring were the giants of vs 4. causes everything else to fall into place and makes sense. This isn't any kind of study or anything, just pointing out that what's important is what scripture saith and to study it line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little, there a little. Some things are hard to understand and accept but that doesn't make them untrue.

Grace and Peace to you brother,

Jennifer

[Brother Tim]

Tony, you are absolutely correct about Genesis 6 not referring to angels. I was beginning to think that I was the only one left here who still believed they were humans. [and you put it "more expressively" than I would have.]

That thread is somewhere else, so we mustn't divert this topic too much (though they are somewhat connected).

[greenbear]

tonybones, you said:

Though I have never met you, I think you are too tall for a woman.

I'm not positive what you mean by this but I'll just respond by saying that if I seem tall to you it's because I'm standing on my husband's shoulders. I believe the Lord has given him the gift of teaching, if that is one of the gifts. I like the view from up here!!!

Originally Posted by greenbear

The only thing I can recall ever having disagreed with him on is when I heard him say, and this is from memory but it's pretty close to what he said, "I just can't believe that angels mated with human women before the flood". Any person that takes a position based on "I just can't believe" does not have an open mind and may miss the truth of the matter altogether. I am interested to find out what Dave's position is on UFO's/aliens vis a vis the Nephalim.

Greenbear, I am not familiar with the man you are referencing here, but I do have a lengthy thread going about GIANTS, Sons of God (angels) and Daughters of Men By Bob Deffinbaugh, Th.M. (yes I think they did breed) and the antediluvian creatures called the NEPHILIM (which means fallen ones), tons of information, you can check that out at the link below, and don't miss the last page posts 51 and 53, regarding the interlocking, precision cut stone structures of Puma Punku in Bolivia:
http://av1611.com/forums/showthread.php?t=896

[greenbear]

Thanks for pointing me to that thread, Bros. Parrish. I look very forward to reading through it. This is an excellent board.

[Brother Tim]

Hey, GB, Tony's illustrations can sometimes be as tricky as his doctrines!

He was illustrating the absurdity of someone criticizing Dr. Riplinger without reading her books by show how absurd it would be to criticize your height without ever seeing you.

[just a little modern version translation, hehe]

[greenbear]

Originally Posted by Brother Tim

Hey, GB, Tony's illustrations can sometimes be as tricky as his doctrines!

He was illustrating the absurdity of someone criticizing Dr. Riplinger without reading her books by show how absurd it would be to criticize your height without ever seeing you.

[just a little modern version translation, hehe]

Ohhh, tony IS hard to understand. I guess we all see what we want to see at least those of us lacking in subtlety, that is.

I think I'll stop posting and just read the past threads. Thanks for the heads up, BT.

[greenbear]

But don't hold me to it.

[Brother Tim]

I would say something about women learning in silence, but then I would be beaten all about the head (figuratively).

[greenbear]

Originally Posted by Brother Tim

I would say something about women learning in silence, but then I would be beaten all about the head (figuratively).

BT, now look what you did. I was going to lay off the posting for a while. But I will NOT beat you about the head!

I would say something about women learning in silence

1 Tim
2:11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.

2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

2:15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

Does this apply only to a woman's husband or all christian men? Does it apply only in "official" church services, regarding maintaining order or any time any members of the body of Christ are together? Does this apply to a christian chat board? What about Gail Riplinger, et al, are christian woman author's teaching men? I am a bit unclear on how the above verse comes down on all of these questions.