Bible Study Limited info

[Rollo Tamasi]

The issue of fallen angels/nephilim (if true), seemed to answer the question for me about why God would tell the Israelites to commit genocide, and even kill the cattle & donkeys...bad blood, corrupted blood line to prevent the Messiah from being born...So a cleansing was in order, and Noah was perfect in his generations (DNA-blood)...

If the Angel view is not true...then why the genocide of those people?
Anyone wanna take a crack at that one?

Why the genocide of those people?
If you believe in the God of love and mercy, then you must also believe in the God of his sovereignty and justice.
You must believe both ways or you are no longer believing in the God of the Bible.

With that said, do you really want to question God's commands?
You may not want to accept it, I'm sure Abraham didn't want to accept the killing of his son, but he obeyed.
That's what we are to do.
When Israel failed to kill off all the Canaanites and their cattle, they fell and worshiped their false gods.

Do we really want to question God's commands or would we rather face his wrath?
Looking for answers as to why God does what he does when it does not agree with us
Is that a lack of faith?

 

[Not_Now.Soon]

Sorry dont believe it. He might have been spiritualy saved by faith and not see spiritual death, but no man is immortal in the flesh. Only God is immortal. To say Enoch did not taste death makes man immortal. The rapture theory makes man immortal.

Why is it hard to accept that God took Enoch without him dying? In 2 Kings 2 Elijah is also said to be taken, but it wasn't by dying. And in both Acts 1and in Mark 16, Jesus is said to have gone to heaven without having to die again.

When I read the account of Enoch. In the context it plainly says each other person died. But it is different with Enoch. That difference in context also seems to point to Enoch being physically taken to heaven, without death.

I guess I just don't understand the hard part to accept this. For me this only strengthens my hope in Jesus, and my hope for a promise of an eternal life after we die.

 

[Not_Now.Soon]

If the Angel view is not true...then why the genocide of those people?
Anyone wanna take a crack at that one?

I think somewhere up this thread someone quoted Jesus, saying to mot be decieved. And because of this to not add anything to what is written in the bible. Going on that same logic, I'd reccomend against challanging someone to argue (and/or prove) the reasoning God has in the actions He did, or the actions He comanded.

Unless the answer comes from a bible quote, the challenge only entices people to add to it by their own understanding and imagination. Or entises the person making the challenge to feel justified in their argument because it was unchallenged. Even if the argumeny was also not a bibically sound perspective.

I don't mean this to agree or disagree with the topic of angels hsving sex with women and having children. (Personally I accept this to have happpenedbecause it's what is described in the bible, with no correction later on in the bible to wuestion the issue.) But I say this because as an argument that kind of challenge in any context can be s danger and a stumbling block to anyone who makes the challenge as well as anyone eho tries to answer the challenge. Iy could lead to us unwittenly decieve ourselves.

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

I think somewhere up this thread someone quoted Jesus, saying to mot be decieved. And because of this to not add anything to what is written in the bible. Going on that same logic, I'd reccomend against challanging someone to argue (and/or prove) the reasoning God has in the actions He did, or the actions He comanded.

Unless the answer comes from a bible quote, the challenge only entices people to add to it by their own understanding and imagination. Or entises the person making the challenge to feel justified in their argument because it was unchallenged. Even if the argumeny was also not a bibically sound perspective.

I don't mean this to agree or disagree with the topic of angels hsving sex with women and having children. (Personally I accept this to have happpenedbecause it's what is described in the bible, with no correction later on in the bible to wuestion the issue.) But I say this because as an argument that kind of challenge in any context can be s danger and a stumbling block to anyone who makes the challenge as well as anyone eho tries to answer the challenge. Iy could lead to us unwittenly decieve ourselves.

In the middle of this great answer you chose to give your opinion on the matter.
That ruined what you had to say.

 

[JohnDB]

True scripture had to pass 100 different tests before it would be classified as scripture according to the Jews. Daniel was extraordinary in that he accepted Jeremiah before 100 year test had been passed.

Now the whole Bible has been tested this way. The Apocrypha was never considered scriptures but "along side" information.

The pseudopigraphal book of Enoch was never nor ever would be considered scripture. Mostly because of the first few chapters explain how and why it never would pass several of the tests for scripture.
As it is the book was written in 100-200 BC. And was considered to be a bit of Talmud... (Made up stories)

Why today we hyperventilate over this book is beyond me.... Especially since most can't remember half of what's in the 66 books that aren't disputed. It contains no "magic key" of knowledge and has tales that can confuse your average Bible reader if they don't understand it's proper context.

There isn't much information that is pertinent... Just a tiny bit. And it's mostly anthropology.

 

[Not_Now.Soon]

In the middle of this great answer you chose to give your opinion on the matter.
That ruined what you had to say.

That's fine. I was trying to be honest. But I wanted to make it clear that I was taking about the challenge itself, not about the dubject matter. And in order to be honest I also had to address where I stand on the subject matter.

I'm sorry if it ruined the answer for you though.

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

That's fine. I was trying to be honest. But I wanted to make it clear that I was taking about the challenge itself, not about the dubject matter. And in order to be honest I also had to address where I stand on the subject matter.

I'm sorry if it ruined the answer for you though.

Not that it matters much to me, but you did not have to add your opinions to make a point, unless your point is your opinion.

 

[Not_Now.Soon]

True scripture had to pass 100 different tests before it would be classified as scripture according to the Jews. Daniel was extraordinary in that he accepted Jeremiah before 100 year test had been passed.

Now the whole Bible has been tested this way. The Apocrypha was never considered scriptures but "along side" information.

The pseudopigraphal book of Enoch was never nor ever would be considered scripture. Mostly because of the first few chapters explain how and why it never would pass several of the tests for scripture.
As it is the book was written in 100-200 BC. And was considered to be a bit of Talmud... (Made up stories)

Why today we hyperventilate over this book is beyond me.... Especially since most can't remember half of what's in the 66 books that aren't disputed. It contains no "magic key" of knowledge and has tales that can confuse your average Bible reader if they don't understand it's proper context.

There isn't much information that is pertinent... Just a tiny bit. And it's mostly anthropology.

Good to know. Thanks for that bit of info John.

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

Good to know. Thanks for that bit of info John.

Are you talking to me?

 

[Not_Now.Soon]

Not that it matters much to me, but you did not have to add your opinions to make a point, unless your point is your opinion.

Fair enough. I guess I didn't know how to make that point, and have the point be accepted, that this wasn't about the subjest matter but about the challenge; unless I also dirtied up my handswith an honest aproach with where I actually stand.


In the past, when I've made a simular comment about a type of argumemt or an approach, both sides of those debating took what I said to be part of their arguments and continued on with what they said, as if they had my argument as new source to back them up.

 

[Not_Now.Soon]

Are you talking to me?

No I meant it for JohnDB from post #65. He gave information I was not aware of, and will have to consider for later on.

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

Fair enough. I guess I didn't know how to make that point, and have the point be accepted, that this wasn't about the subjest matter but about the challenge; unless I also dirtied up my handswith an honest aproach with where I actually stand.


In the past, when I've made a simular comment about a type of argumemt or an approach, both sides of those debating took what I said to be part of their arguments and continued on with what they said, as if they had my argument as new source to back them up.

I see your point.
Sorry if I said the wrong things to you.
I can be overbearing just like them sometimes.

 

[Edward]

O my good, good friend Edward. Not only do I believe your first paragraph but I also believe that the book of Enoch was purposely not made part of the Canon of Scripture because Enoch told the truth about this terrible time in man's history. Enoch tells the origin of cosmetics for a woman and the efforts of demons causing the women to live very sinful lives.

This indeed, IMO, was Satan's plan to corrupt the human race in order to cancel out any attempt of God to bring forth His Son Jesus. I know I'm sticking my neck out here because this is very controversial, it's just my gut feeling.

Is this off topic? If so, let me know. Is this a forbidden subject? Opps, sorry!

That is not off topic at all Brother. It's all related.I believe that a proper understanding of Genesis 6 is necessary to understanding most of the rest of scripture (the genocide for instance), but especially the entire chapter of Matthew 24, where Jesus Himself is giving the Disciples a private briefing on the end times...(no-one disputes we're there I notice!), and he speaks of the rapture, and says, as in the days of Noah...So, yes Brother, it is on topic and relevant. So we have to go back to Genesis 6 to get an understanding of how it was in the days of Noah.

It is written very plainly that there were giants (nephilim) then. Satan was trying to prevent the birth of Jesus by corrupting the bloodlines. As we know, this was thwarted by Noah. The book of Enoch says the fallen one's were punished so severely for touching our women, that I (speculate) that they don't want to do that again...So are now trying to do it genetically? (i.e., cattle mutilation for gathering genetic material and blood--abducting people who come back with stories of the "aliens" impregnating them or otherwise harvesting reproductive material from them...)

I know this is far out stuff, Brother, but thinking along these lines would explain a lot of things and seems to be backed up with scripture.
A gut feeling of mine is that all aliens are demonic in nature, and as such, are subject to the authority of the name, Jesus Christ.

...or so it seems to me.

 

[Edward]

I think somewhere up this thread someone quoted Jesus, saying to mot be decieved. And because of this to not add anything to what is written in the bible. Going on that same logic, I'd reccomend against challanging someone to argue (and/or prove) the reasoning God has in the actions He did, or the actions He comanded.

Unless the answer comes from a bible quote, the challenge only entices people to add to it by their own understanding and imagination. Or entises the person making the challenge to feel justified in their argument because it was unchallenged. Even if the argumeny was also not a bibically sound perspective.

I don't mean this to agree or disagree with the topic of angels hsving sex with women and having children. (Personally I accept this to have happpenedbecause it's what is described in the bible, with no correction later on in the bible to wuestion the issue.) But I say this because as an argument that kind of challenge in any context can be s danger and a stumbling block to anyone who makes the challenge as well as anyone eho tries to answer the challenge. Iy could lead to us unwittenly decieve ourselves.

Perhaps so, Sister. I see what you mean.

...but if it's not true, it leaves me without an answer for that and feeling a little...2

 

[Edward]

Let's see.. Edward can't come up with any metaphors for one of his favorite controversial passages...

You're right Brother, I've tried to come up with an alternate meaning to the passage, symbolic or whatever, and can not. The next step at that point, is to consider the passage in a literal light.

None of the alternate meanings put forth to date hold water for me. It's not that I want it to be true, but that I want to know the truth.

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

Our God is powerless to stop alien rapes.

 

[Not_Now.Soon]

Perhaps so, Sister. I see what you mean.

...but if it's not true, it leaves me without an answer for that and feeling a little...2

Just keep it in the realm of possibilities, instead of accepted or rejected. Personally I am glad to hear some other theories to consider when it comes to bibilical understanding. With time and my own background of bible knowledge, I sometimes accept some of these, reject others, and for at least a few I hold as a posibility, even if I have no confidance to say yea or nay on them.

I even have a pet theory of my own for trying to understand why God has allowed so much evil to be present in the world. Even that theory though I acknowledge doesn't hold much weight bibically. It can't be confirmed nor is it addressed. It can only be placed in my head as my best explaination, but at best it's only a possibility, not something to accept outright.

No worries sbout this, but just wanted to correct that I'm a guy, not a gal. Sorry if there was confusion.

 

[Edward]

This sounds very much like a conspiracy and conspiracies are not allowed.
Unless you can show it's a salvation issue.
So far it's all been opinion.

Nosiree, Brother. This is just a study of the Word of God, wherein I am being completely dogmatic, and suggested for others to do the same.

It's such a controversial subject that it deserves a closer look. We're just tossing around ideas trying to fit puzzle pieces together to see if they could fit, or definitely don't fit...

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

Nosiree, Brother. This is just a study of the Word of God, wherein I am being completely dogmatic, and suggested for others to do the same.

It's such a controversial subject that it deserves a closer look. We're just tossing around ideas trying to fit puzzle pieces together to see if they could fit, or definitely don't fit...

You've been giving this subject a closer look for 3 1/2 years.
You're only hoping that you can talk people into agreeing with you so you don't feel so all alone on the subject.
And although it is not my judgment, I can't help but wonder why you are so engrossed with this subject.