[Brother Tim]

Sorry, folks... I need to do a little catching up....

Bro. Parrish asked:

Bro. Tim, how did Jesus get on Earth as a human child?

When I mentioned this discussion to my mom, who had asked what the latest hot topic was, I mentioned that some might even try to compare the miraculous conception of the LORD Jesus with the Genesis 6 event. She nearly ripped my head off, and we're on the same side! To even vocalize that heresy about put her into a fit! There is so much horrible about the implications of your question that I cannot answer it and remain decent.

-------------

Winman said:

Now if angels could take on a physical body as these two angels did, it is also completely possible that the "sons of God" in Gen. 6 were also angels that took on the physical form of man and mated with women. The children born would be flesh, they would be men.

You are stepping out into speculation and at the same time making a counter argument to the "fallen angel" side. Angels who took on the form of man and had human characteristics were doing so as messengers of God. They were "on duty". IF your last sentence is true, then their offspring would be no different than any other child. They would not be half-breeds. You defeat the very argument being made by the pro-giant folks.

Also, regarding the "seed" of the serpent, Jesus said of His adversaries, "Ye are of your father the devil". (John 8:44) It IS a spiritual and not physical seed. They bruised Jesus' heel.

---------------

Greenbear used the Jude and 2 Peter passages which do not connect overtly to the Genesis 6 event. The "sin" of the angels is not defined in either passage. We do know that angels were involved in Satan's rebellion. I believe that this is what is being addressed in these passages. Additionally, would you not think that their "crime" would have been addressed at that time, at least a hint? God was angry at MEN!! (v3,5) WHY?!?!

NOTE: I saw later that some others have repeated these verses, zeroing in on "estate" and "habitation" as evidence. Angels joined with satan in his rebellion. Those phrases could just as easily fit that event.

---------
From Bro. Parrish's post #76:

My response to his points:

1. My Bible does not have Nephilim in Genesis 6. My Bible is my final authority.

2. None of the verses that contain the phrase "sons of God" have the word "angel" in them. You must make an interpretation based on your understanding. The Scriptures themselves DO NOT make the connection.

3. Now you reverse your argument. "Sethites were never called the 'sons of God'." See response #2 above.... Neither were angels.

I make my connection with this: (underlining mine)

Genesis 4:26 And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the LORD.

Psa 82:6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.

Hosea 1:10 Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered; and it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God

------------

From Luke's post #79:

My responses to his points:

1. Regarding "There is no such thing as a godly line of anyone."

Malachi 2:15 And did not he make one? Yet had he the residue of the spirit. And wherefore one? That he might seek a godly seed. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth.

2. Regarding "A 'saved', 'righteous' or 'godly' person does not have gigantic children, anywhere in scripture." For the umpteenth time. Genesis 6:1-5 does not say that the "giants" were the offspring. Read the verse without modification! Look at the sentence connections.

3. Regarding "If seth is so godly, why did he do this thing, and why is everyone judged for it?" WHAT THING?!?


Sorry for some scattering... more posts came in while I was composing. I am posting without proofreading to avoid further posts sneaking in.

[Brother Tim]

Why did Abraham require of his servant that Isaac not get a wife from the neighboring people, but rather, return to his family (SETHITES) to get a wife. There is nothing recorded of God making this a requirement.

Then Isaac and Rebekah are grieved when Esau does marry foreign wives. Why?

I believe it goes all the way back in the traditions of the Sethites. They were to maintain a separation from the rest of mankind. They were distinct. Why would the genealogy of Jesus prior to Abraham be tracked otherwise? Tracing Him back to David established His royal credentials. Tracing Him back to Abraham established His national credentials. What purpose was there to go farther back, even to Adam, if not to show the Godly line. {Luke: being of the Godly line does not equate to being perfect or sinless, it simply identifies that one as being part of God's plans}

[greenbear]

I misread your post so I erased my post in response.

Originally Posted by Brother Tim

Sorry, folks... I need to do a little catching up....

Bro. Parrish asked:When I mentioned this discussion to my mom, who had asked what the latest hot topic was, I mentioned that some might even try to compare the miraculous conception of the LORD Jesus with the Genesis 6 event. She nearly ripped my head off, and we're on the same side! To even vocalize that heresy about put her into a fit! There is so much horrible about the implications of your question that I cannot answer it and remain decent.

Okay tell your mom to settle down brother.
What heresy, I simply asked you a question...
You're the one who brought up "spirit beings and virgins" back in no. 67, not me.

Now it seems to me that no matter what we may think, there is clear scripture to show that the Spirit of God, (and God is a Spirit - John 4:24), chose at least some type of action with a human female to produce His blessed Son.

Now I don't know exactly what that was, and I'm not suggesting the virgin birth was identical to what happened in Gen. 6, (not at all) but when you look at that scripture I just don't see why it's so hard to accept that something could happen in the realm of angels and humans...

On one hand you implied there is "an absence of any other observable evidence" of the capability of some type of "SPIRIT BEINGS" to interact on some level with human females, yet on the other hand you seem to ignore the truth...

"Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God." Luke 1:34-35

[greenbear]

Greenbear used the Jude and 2 Peter passages which do not connect overtly to the Genesis 6 event. The "sin" of the angels is not defined in either passage. We do know that angels were involved in Satan's rebellion. I believe that this is what is being addressed in these passages. Additionally, would you not think that their "crime" would have been addressed at that time, at least a hint? God was angry at MEN!! (v3,5) WHY?!?!

NOTE: I saw later that some others have repeated these verses, zeroing in on "estate" and "habitation" as evidence. Angels joined with satan in his rebellion. Those phrases could just as easily fit that event.

BT,
I hope you're retired or you won't have time to try to hit all these balls out of the ballpark one after another! You are a one man team unless someone else joins you! You hit a few foul balls tonight, I see.

I'll only deal with your response to me at this time.

You said: "Greenbear used the Jude and 2 Peter passages which do not connect overtly to the Genesis 6 event. The "sin" of the angels is not defined in either passage. We do know that angels were involved in Satan's rebellion. I believe that this is what is being addressed in these passages."


Scripture interprets scripture; you would have us believe that these verses do not deal with Genesis 6:1 but rather with Satan's rebellion. I can show you why they don't deal with Satan's rebellion.

If Jude 1:6 and 2 Pe 2:4-5 did deal with angels who were involved with Satan's rebellion then there would be no fallen angels that remain free.
Jude 1:6" And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day."
2 Pe 2:4 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; 2:5 And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;

But there are fallen angels that remain free.
Ps 78:49 He cast upon them the fierceness of his anger, wrath, and indignation, and trouble, by sending evil angels among them.

Additionally, 2 Pe 2:5 is separated from 2:4 with a semi-colon showing the two parts of the sentence are related. Please note that 2:5 references noah and the judgement of the flood upon the world of the ungodly. This very helpfully establishes the identity of the angels that sinned. They are the one and the same Son's of God from Gen 6. Jude 1:6 is a parallel passage to 2 Pe 2:4. Both verses relate specifically and exclusivelly to the Sons of God in Gen 6.

If you still maintain that these verses don't deal with Gen 6 please explain what you do believe they refer to. It clearly cannot be Satan's rebellion.
You said: "Additionally, would you not think that their "crime" would have been addressed at that time, at least a hint? God was angry at MEN!! (v3,5) WHY?!?!"

Are you saying that because those verses don't spell out how the angels sinned you won't believe the angels sin was mating with human women but you will believe the sin was Satan's rebellion (which I have already proven can't be true)?
So what you are saying is that because the verses don't specify the sin, you feel free to throw out a possible answer you don't like and you try to force an impossible answer to fit the verses. We've already established that 2 Pe 2:5 ties these verses to Gen 6 to Noah's day and the Flood. Yes, God was grieved at man in Gen 6. What does that have to do with the identity of the Son's of God in Gen 6? Are you saying that because God was grieved at man that proves the Son's of God were men? That's very weak, IMHO. I think it is easier just to believe what the scriptures say.

GB

Originally Posted by Brother Tim

None of the verses that contain the phrase "sons of God" have the word "angel" in them. You must make an interpretation based on your understanding. The Scriptures themselves DO NOT make the connection.

in reply to your post above;

Bro Tim, look at the CONTEXT of Job 38...

4 "Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding."

Brother, can you answer that question? Where were the MEN?
Man was not yet created when God laid the foundations of the earth brother.

5 Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?

6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;

7 When the morning stars sang together, and
all the sons of God shouted for joy?

Tim, if the sons of God are not angels, then who are they, JEWS?
Come on brother...

[Brother Tim]

Regarding Job 38 proving "sons of God" = angels: Not every creature in heaven is an angel. The name "angel" doesn't exist in Job 38.

[Greektim]

Originally Posted by Bro. Parrish

in reply to your post above;

Bro Tim, look at the CONTEXT of Job 38...

4 "Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding."

Brother, can you answer that question? Where were the MEN?
Man was not yet created when God laid the foundations of the earth brother.

5 Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?

6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;

7 When the morning stars sang together, and
all the sons of God shouted for joy?

Tim, if the sons of God are not angels, then who are they, JEWS?
Come on brother...

I knew we had something in common Bro. Parish. I agree w/ you.

[Brother Tim]

Well, it's hopeless now!
Next we'll have cats and dogs sleeping together. {Spirit dogs of course.}

[kevinvw]

Or maybe the dogly line of Seth!?

Sorry, bad joke.