Religion

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

BrownFlush

Woke Racist Reigning Ban King
DriveInDriveOut said:
You said angels cannot procreate.
My point is that statement makes it clear you are not familiar with the story of nephilim in the book of Genesis.What are you confused about?
Click to expand...
Dream on Drivel.
The “sons of God,” taking as their wives the “daughters of men” in Genesis 6:1-8?
Is this what you're driveling about?
The context of Genesis 6 leads to the conclusion that the “sons of God” mentioned in Genesis 6:2 were the descendants of Seth, the son of Adam (Gen. 4:25).
In Genesis 4 there are two families: (1) Cain and his descendants, and (2) Seth and his descendants. Cain’s descendants followed the pattern set by their father, Cain, and continued to live farther and farther away from God (Gen. 4:16-24).
In contrast, Seth and his family “began to call on the name of the Lord” (Gen. 4:26). Genesis 5 records this family tree all the way to Noah (Gen. 5:32).
Genesis 6:1-8 tells us how the world became so wicked and vile that God determined to destroy sinful man (which he did with the flood). This occurred because those whose ancestors had previously “called upon the name of the Lord” began to compromise and cohabit with the “daughters of men” (that is, the men and their families who did not call upon the name of the Lord).
They abandoned their spiritual heritage and “took wives for themselves of all whom they chose” (Gen. 6:2). When men began to be driven by their own lustful desires rather than the word and will of God they were influenced by the evil they grew to love.
The result was a world full of violent attackers, robbers, and tyrants (Gen. 6:4 says “giants” which is translated from a word which means “to fall upon” or attack) rather than one filled with people who “called upon the name of the Lord.”
These men made a name for themselves among other men, but not in eyes of the Lord (Gen. 6:4). It was Noah, a just man who walked with God who caught God’s attention and obtained God’s favor (Gen. 6:8-9).
The divine reaction to the wickedness of men was one of grief, sorrow, and ultimately judgment (Gen. 6:3, 5-7). God determined to destroy the earth and accomplished their punishment with the great flood (Gen. 6:13, 17; 7:1).

There is no compelling reason from context or the rest of the Bible to convince us that the “sons of God” in Genesis 6:2 were heavenly creatures instead of human beings. Such is the stuff of human fancy and fiction and Drivel. There is no basis for this view in the inspired text.
The “angels who sinned” in 2 Peter 2:4 cannot be the “sons of God” of Genesis 6:2 because those angels were “cast down to hell and delivered into chains (pits, ASV) of darkness.”
They were not sent to the earth (see also Jude 6).

So, the “sons of God” in Genesis 6:2 were men who did not remain holy and separated from the sin that was around them. Instead, they married women who influenced them to forsake righteous living. The result was mankind’s ruin and destruction.
 
DriveInDriveOut

DriveInDriveOut

Inordinately Right
TheBrownFlush said:
Dream on Drivel.
The “sons of God,” taking as their wives the “daughters of men” in Genesis 6:1-8?
Is this what you're driveling about?
The context of Genesis 6 leads to the conclusion that the “sons of God” mentioned in Genesis 6:2 were the descendants of Seth, the son of Adam (Gen. 4:25).
In Genesis 4 there are two families: (1) Cain and his descendants, and (2) Seth and his descendants. Cain’s descendants followed the pattern set by their father, Cain, and continued to live farther and farther away from God (Gen. 4:16-24).
In contrast, Seth and his family “began to call on the name of the Lord” (Gen. 4:26). Genesis 5 records this family tree all the way to Noah (Gen. 5:32).
Genesis 6:1-8 tells us how the world became so wicked and vile that God determined to destroy sinful man (which he did with the flood). This occurred because those whose ancestors had previously “called upon the name of the Lord” began to compromise and cohabit with the “daughters of men” (that is, the men and their families who did not call upon the name of the Lord).
They abandoned their spiritual heritage and “took wives for themselves of all whom they chose” (Gen. 6:2). When men began to be driven by their own lustful desires rather than the word and will of God they were influenced by the evil they grew to love.
The result was a world full of violent attackers, robbers, and tyrants (Gen. 6:4 says “giants” which is translated from a word which means “to fall upon” or attack) rather than one filled with people who “called upon the name of the Lord.”
These men made a name for themselves among other men, but not in eyes of the Lord (Gen. 6:4). It was Noah, a just man who walked with God who caught God’s attention and obtained God’s favor (Gen. 6:8-9).
The divine reaction to the wickedness of men was one of grief, sorrow, and ultimately judgment (Gen. 6:3, 5-7). God determined to destroy the earth and accomplished their punishment with the great flood (Gen. 6:13, 17; 7:1).

There is no compelling reason from context or the rest of the Bible to convince us that the “sons of God” in Genesis 6:2 were heavenly creatures instead of human beings. Such is the stuff of human fancy and fiction and Drivel. There is no basis for this view in the inspired text.
The “angels who sinned” in 2 Peter 2:4 cannot be the “sons of God” of Genesis 6:2 because those angels were “cast down to hell and delivered into chains (pits, ASV) of darkness.”
They were not sent to the earth (see also Jude 6).

So, the “sons of God” in Genesis 6:2 were men who did not remain holy and separated from the sin that was around them. Instead, they married women who influenced them to forsake righteous living. The result was mankind’s ruin and destruction.
Click to expand...
Lulz.
Took you 20 minutes to do some research and copy paste that garbage? Sad

What a load.
You're just like every other BS Evangelical. You've got it all figured out....

Except you twist the biblical scripture to your liking, with a total disregard for historical context or linguistic translation. Not to mention all the non canonical scripture you conveniently avoid addressing.
 
rod

rod

Retired 23 years
Shut this thread down. Religion and politics are 2 subjects that should not be allowed in the first place.
 
B

bacha29

Well-Known Member
That's the great part about biblical text. You can take any passage you want and use it to support any point of view you want.
 
El Correcto

El Correcto

god is dead
rod said:
What’ a freeze peach?
Click to expand...
Free speech.

I think part of the problem with religion is people thinking it’s a way to etch their miserable existence into eternity. Instead of looking at it as morals to live by and judging it purely based on that alone. If you think those morals will help you live a happier life then go for it, but don’t start marching on people keeping imaginary good boy and girl points thinking you’ll cash them in to get through the pearly gate.
 
B

BrownFlush

Woke Racist Reigning Ban King
DriveInDriveOut said:
Lulz.
Took you 20 minutes to do some research and copy paste that garbage? Sad

What a load.
You're just like every other BS Evangelical. You've got it all figured out....

Except you twist the biblical scripture to your liking, with a total disregard for historical context or linguistic translation. Not to mention all the non canonical scripture you conveniently avoid addressing.
Click to expand...
Took me 20 minutes to write it DrivelDipstick. Slow typer.
It's more of a load than you want. Gen.6 has nothing to do with angels procreating.
No BS Evangelical. Just a Christian . Don't have it all figured out, but I do use scripture to answer bible questions.
Twist to my liking? Maybe to your unliking.
Historical context ? Can't go back much further Gen. 4.
All I use is what is canonical. If it's not in the 66 books, I can't discuss it.
 
B

BrownFlush

Woke Racist Reigning Ban King
bacha29 said:
That's the great part about biblical text. You can take any passage you want and use it to support any point of view you want.
Click to expand...
The result is division, division, division.
You ever think , if we are so divisive and violent with religion , where would we be without it?
Thing is, God is not the author of the confusion, we are.
 
Last edited:
rod

rod

Retired 23 years
Wrong said:
Free speech.

I think part of the problem with religion is people thinking it’s a way to etch their miserable existence into eternity. Instead of looking at it as morals to live by and judging it purely based on that alone. If you think those morals will help you live a happier life then go for it, but don’t start marching on people keeping imaginary good boy and girl points thinking you’ll cash them in to get through the pearly gate.
Click to expand...
The old mind must be going fast. No way did I connect freeze peach with free speech. smh
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

N
Massive Military Top Secret Document Leak
2 3
Replies
48
Views
3K
Babagounj
Babagounj
trickpony1
Do fedex trucks have GPS?
2 3
Replies
55
Views
3K
59 Dano
59 Dano
catstalking
CIA tried to pay off analysts to bury COVID lab leak theory
Replies
4
Views
1K
BrownFlush
B
JL 0513
Amazon already bigger delivery company than UPS and FedEx by volume.
5 6 7
Replies
127
Views
12K
vantexan
V
T
Local 878 Members - Southern Supplement
2 3
Replies
57
Views
6K
Brown Circus
Brown Circus
Top