Unraveling Revelation: There Were Giants in the Earth in Those Days

[Free]

Where are the assumption that sons of God ARE his line in the context of Gen 6?

Again, where is your biblical support for the assumption that the sons of God aren’t Noah’s line?

IN THE RESURRECTION and IN HEAVEN. Show me how the pre-flood world was like heaven or anybody at that time was in resurrection.

What does this have to do with anything I’ve said?

Just because angels don't procreate in heaven doesn't mean their human form can't do so on earth.

NOW it came to pass in Noah's generation, Gen. 6:1. Purely unfounded assumption.

Do men have the power to procreate? If so, then so do angels WHEN they take human form with human physiological functions, as they did in Gen. 18.

So, you do seem to want to argue that angels have the power only God has to create something out of nothing, namely, the ability to procreate, and that with humans. What support do you have for angels having such an ability?

What Jesus said was strictly limited in "resurrection" and "heaven",

For humans, yes; for angels, no. He was arguing to the present state of angels.

the pre-flood world in Gen. 6 was neither;

Obviously.

also He never said they CAN'T -

It is implied.

Jude 1:6 shows angels are able to leave their proper domain, they have free will.

How is this relevant? How does free will for angels mean they have the power to create out of nothing?

 

[Free]

Go read Gen. 18 and educate yourself,

Stop with the condescension or you may find yourself out of this discussion.

three men visited Abraham, the Lord and two angels. Abraham bargained with the Lord, the two angels headed to Sodom.

Again, where does the Bible say that angels have the ability to make themselves human? You’re assuming they can, but what the Bible says is most important.

 

[JLB]

Adam was created a Son of God. Could not his sons not also be called sons of God? As their father, they would have also possessed the knowledge of good and evil.

Adam was created directly by God.

Adam sinned.

Man can not reproduce sons of God by natural reproduction.

A human being must be born again.

 

[JLB]

Go read Gen. 18 and educate yourself, three men visited Abraham, the Lord and two angels. Abraham bargained with the Lord, the two angels headed to Sodom.

Amen. We see that angels did indeed take on human form, and do natural things human men do.

Eat, drink…

The homosexual citizens of Sodom wanted to have sex with these men, who were angels that had taken on human form.

 

[JLB]

Angels, are SPIRITS, (Heb. 1: 13 & 14) They donot have sexual apparatus. God did not give them means of procreating and then say `don`t marry. (Matt. 22: 30)

Angels who left their own abode, and took on human form on earth did indeed.

And the angels who did not keep their proper domain, but left their own abode, He has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of the great day; as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. Jude 6-7

Notice these angels who left their own abode are associated with sexual immorality.


For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels of God in heaven.
Matthew 22:30

• but are like angels of God in heaven.

Jesus is referring to angels in heaven.

The angels that had left their own abode had materialized on earth as human men; they were not in heaven.

 

[hawkman]

No, but it is sinful outside of marriage. If angels don’t marry, then they don’t procreate. If they don’t procreate, then there is no point in them having the ability to procreate among themselves, never mind with human women.

We are told in Jude that the angels went after strange flesh and faced God's wrath because of their transgression .
6And 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.

7Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

I started but there was so much speculation that I gave up.

There is speculation and then there is unfounded speculation . Was their speculation unfounded as they saw it ?

 

[Free]

We are told in Jude that the angels went after strange flesh and faced God's wrath because of their transgression .
6And 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.

7Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

Not necessarily. Even if verse 7 was speaking of angels, which it isn't, it doesn't mean that everything about any supposed incident with angels is the same. Besides, we know that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was homosexuality, so that doesn't have any comparison to angels and women.

The point of Jude 1:3-16 is judgement on false teachers. And so we see that verses 6 and 7 provide two examples of eternal punishment--"kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness" and "undergoing a punishment of eternal fire"--not about what sins occurred to result in those punishments.
https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Jude-1-7/

There is speculation and then there is unfounded speculation . Was their speculation unfounded as they saw it ?

I'll have to get back to you on this. I need to re-watch it but am not up for it at the moment.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Again, where is your biblical support for the assumption that the sons of God aren’t Noah’s line?

Again, where is your biblical support for the assumption that the sons of God ARE Noah’s line? That's your big idea, the burden of proof is on you.

What does this have to do with anything I’ve said?

Did you or did you not quote Matt. 22:30?

So, you do seem to want to argue that angels have the power only God has to create something out of nothing, namely, the ability to procreate, and that with humans. What support do you have for angels having such an ability?

Strawman. Not only are you conflating creation with PROCREATION, you're also conflating angels in heaven and their human forms on earth, which do have human physiological functions and needs such as eating.

For humans, yes; for angels, no. He was arguing to the present state of angels.

No he wasn't, again neither "heaven" nor "resurrection" was the present state when he said that.

Obviously.

Then why did you quote Matt. 22:30 and erroneously use it to reason?

It is implied.

No it's not, it's against Jude 1:6.

How is this relevant? How does free will for angels mean they have the power to create out of nothing?

Drop it, man, I've exposed your conflations.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Stop with the condescension or you may find yourself out of this discussion.

How about you stop with your fallacies, threats and racist, misogynist false doctrine of "righteous Sethites intermarried with wicked Cainites"? You chimed in without anybody asking you

Again, where does the Bible say that angels have the ability to make themselves human? You’re assuming they can, but what the Bible says is most important.

Again, go read Gen. 18, angels appeared to Abraham as humans with human physiologies.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

The point of Jude 1:3-16 is judgement on false teachers. And so we see that verses 6 and 7 provide two examples of eternal punishment--"kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness" and "undergoing a punishment of eternal fire"--not about what sins occurred to result in those punishments.
https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Jude-1-7/

The text says ANGELS, it's about angels, as in celestial creatures serving God. "False teachers" is your own personal spiritualization without any scriptural proof.

 

[Free]

How about you stop with your fallacies, threats and racist, misogynist false doctrine of "righteous Sethites intermarried with wicked Cainites"?

What “fallacies, threats and racist, misogynist false doctrine”? For someone who constantly decries the use of labels, you sure like to use them, and often they’re woke ones. If you want to make such serious claims against someone, then provide evidence. Otherwise, stop.

The context supports what I have said.

You chimed in without anybody asking you

That isn’t relevant to anything. Besides, you do it all the time. Everyone does.

Again, go read Gen. 18, angels appeared to Abraham as humans with human physiologies.

Again, where does the Bible say that angels have the ability to make themselves human? You’re assuming they can, but what the Bible says is most important.

Is there a reason you’re avoiding answering my question?

 

[Free]

The text says ANGELS, it's about angels, as in celestial creatures serving God. "False teachers" is your own personal spiritualization without any scriptural proof.

You can’t be serious…

Jud 1:3 Beloved, although I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints.
Jud 1:4 For certain people have crept in unnoticed who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.
…
Jud 1:8 Yet in like manner these people also, relying on their dreams, defile the flesh, reject authority, and blaspheme the glorious ones.
…
Jud 1:10 But these people blaspheme all that they do not understand, and they are destroyed by all that they, like unreasoning animals, understand instinctively.
Jud 1:11 Woe to them! For they walked in the way of Cain and abandoned themselves for the sake of gain to Balaam's error and perished in Korah's rebellion.
Jud 1:12 These are hidden reefs at your love feasts, as they feast with you without fear, shepherds feeding themselves; waterless clouds, swept along by winds; fruitless trees in late autumn, twice dead, uprooted;
Jud 1:13 wild waves of the sea, casting up the foam of their own shame; wandering stars, for whom the gloom of utter darkness has been reserved forever.
Jud 1:14 It was also about these that Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying, “Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of his holy ones,
Jud 1:15 to execute judgment on all and to convict all the ungodly of all their deeds of ungodliness that they have committed in such an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things that ungodly sinners have spoken against him.”
Jud 1:16 These are grumblers, malcontents, following their own sinful desires; they are loud-mouthed boasters, showing favoritism to gain advantage. (ESV)

The context is the false teachers that had crept in. They will be judged, just as certain angels will be and those of Sodom and Gomorrah and surrounding cities were. Those were simply the examples he used of pending judgement for false teachers. It’s a call by Jude to “contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints.” That is the context.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

What “fallacies, threats and racist, misogynist false doctrine”? For someone who constantly decries the use of labels, you sure like to use them, and often they’re woke ones. If you want to make such serious claims against someone, then provide evidence. Otherwise, stop.

The context supports what I have said.

What exactly have you said? You've been playing dumb all the time. You're being antagonistic without anything to contribute to the conversation.

That isn’t relevant to anything. Besides, you do it all the time. Everyone does.

It is relevant on this specific topic when you chimed in to defend the false doctrine of sons of God being "righteous Seth's line" even though they were full of wickedness in the context of Gen. 6 and afterwards (e.g. Ps. 82:6-7) The context does NOT support what you have said. Nothing at all.

Again, where does the Bible say that angels have the ability to make themselves human? You’re assuming they can, but what the Bible says is most important.

Is there a reason you’re avoiding answering my question?

Again, go read Gen. 18, angels appeared to Abraham as humans with human physiologies.

Is there a reason you're avoiding addressing what the bible says in Gen. 18:2, 18:8, 18:16 and 19:1?

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

You can’t be serious…

I'm as serious as a heart attack. The text says LIKEWISE ALSO (NKJV) or in like manner, as in the sense of comparison between the ungodly blasphemers and the wicked angels. Those angels were a reminder - "But I want to remind you, (NKJV)" 1:5.

 

[Free]

Again, where is your biblical support for the assumption that the sons of God ARE Noah’s line? That's your big idea, the burden of proof is on you.

You made a claim and I asked you support it. Now you’re avoiding that and trying to answer my request.

Did you or did you not quote Matt. 22:30?

Of course I did. But, what did your statement have to do with anything I said?

Strawman. Not only are you conflating creation with PROCREATION, you're also conflating angels in heaven and their human forms on earth, which do have human physiological functions and needs such as eating.

Sorry, but there is no straw man on my part nor am I conflating anything. You, however, are begging the question by assuming that angels 1) have the ability to procreate with humans, 2) that they can create this ability themselves, which is to create out of nothing, and 3) don’t already eat in heaven.

You’re making competing claims. I’ll let you figure out what they are.

No he wasn't,

Yes, he was.

Mat 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven. (ESV)

Humans will be like how angels are now.

again neither "heaven" nor "resurrection" was the present state when he said that.

Not relevant.

Then why did you quote Matt. 22:30 and erroneously use it to reason?

Because it’s relevant and I didn’t erroneously use it.

No it's not, it's against Jude 1:6.

Prove it.

Drop it, man, I've exposed your conflations.

You have done nothing of the sort. So, again, how does free will for angels mean they have the power to create out of nothing?

 

[Free]

What exactly have you said? You've been playing dumb all the time. You're being antagonistic without anything to contribute to the conversation.

You were being antagonist and I came and asked some questions, which you don’t want to answer.

It is relevant on this specific topic when you chimed in to defend the false doctrine of sons of God being "righteous Seth's line" even though they were full of wickedness in the context of Gen. 6 and afterwards (e.g. Ps. 82:6-7) The context does NOT support what you have said. Nothing at all.

So you say, but have given nothing at all to support your position when asked.

Again, go read Gen. 18, angels appeared to Abraham as humans with human physiologies.

Again, where does the Bible say that angels have the ability to make themselves human? You’re assuming they can, but what the Bible says is most important.

Is there a reason you're avoiding addressing what the bible says in Gen. 18:2, 18:8, 18:16 and 19:1?

I’m not. Why are you avoiding answering my questions?

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

You made a claim and I asked you support it. Now you’re avoiding that and trying to answer my request.

What claim?

Of course I did. But, what did your statement have to do with anything I said?

Are "IN THE RESURRECTION" and "IN HEAVEN" in Matt. 22:30? Yes or no?

Sorry, but there is no straw man on my part nor am I conflating anything. You, however, are begging the question by assuming that angels 1) have the ability to procreate with humans, 2) that they can create this ability themselves, which is to create out of nothing, and 3) don’t already eat in heaven.

1) Humans have the ability to procreate with humans, angels manifest in human form (Gen. 18:2, 19:1, 19:5)
2) Procreation is NOT creation, and procreation is not to "create out of nothing", sperms and egg are required.
3) They didn't eat in heaven, they ate on earth, in Abraham's tent.

All are strawman on your part.

You’re making competing claims. I’ll let you figure out what they are.

You go figure it out yourself when you understand the difference between creation and PROcreation.

Yes, he was.

Mat 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven. (ESV)

Humans will be like how angels are now.

Irrelevant. People were marrying and giving in marriage in Noah's days.

For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark. (Matt. 24:38)

Not relevant.

Utterly relevant when you yourself have admitted "obviously" in post #21.

Because it’s relevant and I didn’t erroneously use it.

You did erroneously use it when the context of Gen. 6 was neither in resurrection or in heaven.

Prove it.

You prove the implication first. You're the one who's been deliberately, cowardly and repeatedly ignoring the context ""IN THE RESURRECTION" and "IN HEAVEN".

You have done nothing of the sort. So, again, how does free will for angels mean they have the power to create out of nothing?

Keep your strawman to yourself. Show me where it says angels are empowered to create out of nothing.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

You were being antagonist and I came and asked some questions, which you don’t want to answer.

Don't point finger at me, I've answered your questions, you're ignoring them.

So you say, but have given nothing at all to support your position when asked.

I've given solid scriptural proof, you're the one who has nothing. All you've done is erroneously quoting Matt. 22:30 while disregarding its key context "IN THE RESURRECTION" and "IN HEAVEN".

Again, where does the Bible say that angels have the ability to make themselves human? You’re assuming they can, but what the Bible says is most important.

Again, Gen. 18:2, 18:8, 18:16 and 19:1. You're the one who's assuming and in denial of what the bible says.

I’m not. Why are you avoiding answering my questions?

Yes you are. Why are you avoiding addressing what the bible says in Gen. 18:2, 18:8, 18:16 and 19:1?

 

[RedPill]

Show me where it says angels are empowered to create out of nothing

As an aside to this friendly discussion, I offer the following thoughts.

My sperm are alive, and the eggs of my wife are alive. When we mate, we don't create life; we simply extend the living, the life, that God had already breathed into our ancestors. IOW, we create no-thing; we procreate/multiply/reproduce.

Here's a fun thought @ 1 Cor. 11:8-9:

For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.

The entire head covering passage is all about the application of proper authority, in terms of proper spiritual alignment, such that we all remain protected. Specifically, in this instance, we're talking about the woman.

The clue is here:

"For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels." (verse 10)

It was a commonly accepted belief that a repeat of the Genesis chapter 6 episode, where fallen angels mated with earthly women, was not only possible but probable. IOW, these rebellious and malevolent angels remain highly desirous of earthly women. And that is why it's still vital to this day that women remain "under cover."

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

As an aside to this friendly discussion, I offer the following thoughts.

My sperm are alive, and the eggs of my wife are alive. When we mate, we don't create life; we simply extend the living, the life, that God had already breathed into our ancestors. IOW, we create no-thing; we procreate/multiply/reproduce.

Here's a fun thought @ 1 Cor. 11:8-9:

For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.

The entire head covering passage is all about the application of proper authority, in terms of proper spiritual alignment, such that we all remain protected. Specifically, in this instance, we're talking about the woman.

The clue is here:

"For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels." (verse 10)

It was a commonly accepted belief that a repeat of the Genesis chapter 6 episode, where fallen angels mated with earthly women, was not only possible but probable. IOW, these rebellious and malevolent angels remain highly desirous of earthly women. And that is why it's still vital to this day that women remain "under cover."

Yes, and the whole purpose of the global flood and the preceived "genocide" of Canaanites were God's damage control to clean up the mess these fallen angels had made.