Who are the sons of God and the daughters of men

[Ronald Nolette]

You are still being rude. Try talking to people WITHOUT INSULTING THEM.

Well I then apologize you are so thin skinned.

But be warned, every time you want to throw a moronic line like Eve cannot be the mother of all living because she didn't give birth to Adam, be prepared to be called out for stupid responses. Unless of course you really do not know converstaional language, then I sincerely apologize and will find a way to communicate in a much simpler way.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

You are still being rude. Try talking to people WITHOUT INSULTING THEM.

I will also stop with my sarcastic remarks ( I use sarcasm as humor- understand I am not mad at you ) when you stop the kind of snarky responses like th eone in my last response you write. People who want to strain at a gnat and swallow a camel kind of invoke my dewfault sarcastic humor.

When I get foolosih remarks from people I know should know better, I go into Prov. 26:5 mode.

 

[ewq1938]

I will also stop with my sarcastic remarks ( I use sarcasm as humor- understand I am not mad at you ) when you stop the kind of snarky responses like th eone in my last response you write.

Stop trying to justify your mean spirited behavior. You use ad hominems as part of your debate style.

 

[Timtofly]

The bible simply says Eve is the mother of all living. I will take god at His Word. what reason should I take you at your word?

The Bible simply states, that Adam claimed Eve was the mother of all those alive born with Adam's sin nature. You give a word that states it simply so I understand your terminology. Adam just disobeyed God. What state do you think Adam was in?

How did Eve sin in the first 12 hours after Adam was created? Adam had not even slept yet for God to have removed Eve in those 12 hours. How does your miraculous "against common sense" time table work, if all you are going to do is make fun of Genesis 2 where it called the Sabbath a Lord's Day?

What is a Lord's Day in light of 2 Peter 3:8? Hint no 24 hour period is mentioned in that verse.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Stop trying to justify your mean spirited behavior. You use ad hominems as part of your debate style.

Then answer me why you made a point to bring out that Eve was not the mother of Adam, if not to be whatever!

Eve is the mother of all living and to paraphrase Paul:

27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.

Of all humans born- Eve is the mother of them.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

The Bible simply states, that Adam claimed Eve was the mother of all those alive born with Adam's sin nature. You give a word that states it simply so I understand your terminology. Adam just disobeyed God. What state do you think Adam was in?

So then you are saying that these sons of gopd were not born with a sin nature. so after that 1,000 years of celibacy ( you still haven't told us if god made daughters of God as well for these sons of God). so we can conclude it possible that an untold number of these "Sons of God" after 1,000+ years of celibacy, saws the daughters of mankind and lusted after them?

Yes the bible claimed Eve is the Mother of all living. Remember ALL Scripture is given by inspiration of God. It doeasn't have that passage in parantheses saying except this one. so if you have a verse that says this is a lie or that Eve did not give birth to the entire human race that was born- I am all ears.

How did Eve sin in the first 12 hours after Adam was created? Adam had not even slept yet for God to have removed Eve in those 12 hours. How does your miraculous "against common sense" time table work, if all you are going to do is make fun of Genesis 2 where it called the Sabbath a Lord's Day?

Who said anything about 12 hours? Not me! From the time Adam and Eve were created to teh fall is an unknown time frame. I could have been decades and even centuries for all we can know.

What is a Lord's Day in light of 2 Peter 3:8? Hint no 24 hour period is mentioned in that verse.

Now keep 2 Peter in context and recognize basic uses of grammar you should have learned in k-6 and you will se this is not a doctrine but a euphemism comparing a day with a 1,000 years and a 1,000 years as a day in respect to teh patrience and long suffering of god.

Your kind of error is common with all people who pull a verse or part of a verse out of its context and force it fit in things it never was thought of by God!

If you were an honest sutdent, you would see that Peter did not write a thousand years is a day to the Lord and a day is 1,000 years (to whom by the way). If it said that I would be agreeing with you and we would not have this discussion. But because God made sure that the little word "as" was included for both, He was making it simply clear and plain, He was making a comparison. and th ecomparison is to how long Gods patience is- if you keep verses in the context god inspired them to be.

Look at the verse in it ssurrounding context:

3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,

4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.


A) Peter is referring to people in the last days who mock Jesus' physical return.
B) they are willingly ignorant of the flood and the length it took for th eflood
C) the present universe is being kept for a special day or time period.
D) That day WILL come- even if it seems a long time coming!

there is nothing in this passage that God inspired to show He was making a doctrinal statement of time as you suggest wrongly.

 

[Timtofly]

So then you are saying that these sons of God were not born with a sin nature. so after that 1,000 years of celibacy ( you still haven't told us if god made daughters of God as well for these sons of God). so we can conclude it possible that an untold number of these "Sons of God" after 1,000+ years of celibacy, saws the daughters of mankind and lusted after them?

Why does every thing have to be spelled out for you gender related? Are all humans automatically males, unless you think they need to have sex? Sons of God is just a term like humans is just a term. Should we start saying "womankind" to not offend your "mankind" not being gender understandable?

Do you need God to put a sex talk in Genesis 1 so you could understand how they multiplied as sons of God for 1,000 years?

Why would God create sons of God with a sin nature? Do you not understand that there was no sin and no death for 1,000 years? Is that too impossible to God, that He had to stoop to your demands that all humans be created with a sin nature?

Yes the bible claimed Eve is the Mother of all living. Remember ALL Scripture is given by inspiration of God. It doeasn't have that passage in parantheses saying except this one. so if you have a verse that says this is a lie or that Eve did not give birth to the entire human race that was born - I am all ears.

God did not inspire Adam to name Eve. Adam did that all on his own. Adam just disobeyed God and now is a sinner. Why do you reject that Adam could have lied? Are you saying now Adam could not lie, or God would not have told Moses the exact words Adam used, even if they were a lie?

Adam was bragging and you are deceived by Adam's state of mind. But you are a son of Eve so there is that going for you. Eve did not give birth to those sons of God created on the 6th Day. Eve was not even around on the 6th day.

Who said anything about 12 hours? Not me! From the time Adam and Eve were created to the fall is an unknown time frame. It could have been decades and even centuries for all we can know.

You claim they were created on the 6th day. You have changed your stance on that point?

There were 12 hours of darkness on the 6th day, and 12 hours of light. Adam had no time to name all the animals go to sleep and see Eve the next morning in those 12 hours of daylight. The Sabbath started at 6pm sharp in God's created time keeping.

Now you just willy nilly throw in "centuries" of time on your own imaginative guessing? At least I pointed out the verses in Genesis 2 to state a Day of the Lord.

But hey, why use Scripture, when your imagination is better?

Now keep 2 Peter in context and recognize basic uses of grammar you should have learned in k-6 and you will see this is not a doctrine but a euphemism comparing a day with a 1,000 years and a 1,000 years as a day in respect to the patrience and long suffering of God.

So God is not patient enough to allow the 1,000 year reign of Jesus? You are now an Amil propenant who claims 1,000 years is not A Lord's Day, but just some indefinite time reference declaring God's patience? The point Peter said to not be ignorant about had nothing to do with God's patience. It had to do with those scoffers, who declared that since the beginning nothing has changed. Peter was pointing out over the last 4,000 years, it was only as days to God. God is patient no doubt, letting humans enjoy sin for 6,000 years. God is also longsuffering, so Peter was not making it a doctrine. Neither am I. God set up life in 1,000 year increments and then compared that to "days". That was pointed out in Genesis 2. Obviously you don't Remember the Sabbath Day of the Lord, nor the length thereof.

Your kind of error is common with all people who pull a verse or part of a verse out of its context and force it fit in things it never was thought of by God!

And you are one who listens to other humans and their theology, as if it made sense, until one actually reads Scripture.

If you were an honest sutdent, you would see that Peter did not write a thousand years is a day to the Lord and a day is 1,000 years (to whom by the way). If it said that I would be agreeing with you and we would not have this discussion. But because God made sure that the little word "as" was included for both, He was making it simply clear and plain, He was making a comparison. and th ecomparison is to how long Gods patience is- if you keep verses in the context god inspired them to be.

No, this is a figurative phrase compared to a literal time period. It is not an euphemism. Day is not 24 hours in that text. The Greek word is defined as the 12 hours of daylight. Peter is not comparing a day to 1,000 years. Peter is comparing time with the Lord as 1,000 years. If you are being literal it would be 12 hours is equal to 1,000 years, and 1,000 years is equal to 12 hours. Peter was quoting the psalmist from Psalm 90:4. Peter made the point a day with the Lord. Peter did not say a day is equal to 1,000 years to the Lord. In the Greek there is no verb. Even if it is understood that way, there is no verb. Peter wrote a prepositional phrase. Peter did not even use the whole quote. The first century readers would still see it as 12 hours, and know it was only half of the quote from Psalms:

"For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night."

The psalmist pointed out both daylight and a night watch as being closer to a true 24 hour day. However time as in yesterday and the night watch is still not the point. A thousand years in both instances is literal time passing for humans. The text does not mention God's patience and longsuffering, although it points out all the changes and destruction humans face due to God's punishment. Time is fleeting even though it seems there has been lots of time on earth.

Peter was pointing out dispensations of time, and that God was patient and longsuffering. Perhaps you missed the subtle hint Peter gave in the phrase Day with the Lord? Several NT writers had the Day of the Lord in their thoughts. All figurative and not a literal 24 hr. day. In fact a few verses later Peter points that out again in verse 10:

Look at the verse in it's surrounding context:

3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,

4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

A) Peter is referring to people in the last days who mock Jesus' physical return.
B) they are willingly ignorant of the flood and the length it took for the flood.
C) the present universe is being kept for a special day or time period.
D) That day WILL come- even if it seems a long time coming!

There is nothing in this passage that God inspired to show He was making a doctrinal statement of time as you suggest wrongly.

Then you probably need to figure out what the Day of the Lord truly is. Since neither Peter nor I are making this a doctrine, even the Psalmist was aware of the Day of the Lord. Moses was aware of the Day of the Lord. This is not a new concept now nor in the first century. So falsely accusing me of trying to start some new doctrine, searching God's Word is a better use of your time.

Peter pointed out the last day scoffers would be ignorant of time. Today we can see they have totally changed the time God gave to Moses in Genesis 1 and 2. They claim billions and millions of years of constant change. They claim there was no global Flood. Even Christians scoff at the point there was a 1,000 year period of no sin and no death. Explain that one to evolutionist who cry constant change and the decay of carbon dating. Decay did not even start until God cursed the ground when Adam disobeyed God. But go ahead and scoff and interpret Genesis according to modern science. It will never change what actually did happen even if you reject the plain truth in God's Word.

 

[Waiting on him]

sxlsxl:)

Eve is the mother of all of Adam's dead flesh.

The sons of God were created on the 6th day. Adam was a son of God, and after the Sabbath was placed in the Garden of Eden/Paradise. Later Eve was taken out of Adam. Adam disobeyed God. He physically stopped being a son of God and was physically and spiritually in a dead corruptible physical body. He needed the Holy Spirit and a new incorruptible body, just like Eve and all who came after them in dead corruptible flesh.

Adam boasted that Eve was the mother of all dead flesh. Adam's boast which is a lie, is found in God's Word. God did not make that claim nor gave Eve her name. That was Adam's lie in his newly acquired sinful nature.

Jesus was the first son of God as scripture defines………………

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Why does every thing have to be spelled out for you gender related? Are all humans automatically males, unless you think they need to have sex? Sons of God is just a term like humans is just a term. Should we start saying "womankind" to not offend your "mankind" not being gender understandable?

Do you need God to put a sex talk in Genesis 1 so you could understand how they multiplied as sons of God for 1,000 years?

Why would God create sons of God with a sin nature? Do you not understand that there was no sin and no death for 1,000 years? Is that too impossible to God, that He had to stoop to your demands that all humans be created with a sin nature?[/QUOTE/]

Nothing is impossible for God. but it is you who is adding 1,000 years and the sons of God are other humans.

You have created a massive narrative out of whole cloth that the bible does not even speak of.

And I never said man was created with a sin nature. that is you now reinterpreting my words like you do with Scripture.

And no, thinking people do not need god to have a sex talk. The first we see the term bene-elohim is Genesis 6. and they are put in contrast with bat-adam. So God inspired a male female contrast. Unless of course maybe some of these bene-elohim were the female sons of God and had lesbian relationships with the bat-adam. How can you know without being there????????

God did not inspire Adam to name Eve. Adam did that all on his own. Adam just disobeyed God and now is a sinner. Why do you reject that Adam could have lied? Are you saying now Adam could not lie, or God would not have told Moses the exact words Adam used, even if they were a lie?

Adam was bragging and you are deceived by Adam's state of mind. But you are a son of Eve so there is that going for you. Eve did not give birth to those sons of God created on the 6th Day. Eve was not even around on the 6th day.

Well God allowed Adam to name all creatures. So where is your proof He could not name His wife? You are long on jumping to conclusions, but woefully short on proving your ideas.

Once agasin, where is your proof that Adam was bragging??? And you are a son of eve as well, so you have that going for you.


but an important question for you .

You keep insisiting the bene-elohim were the other humans God made apart from Adam and Eve. So they are part of mankind, for they are human.

Why does God distinguish them from the daughters of mankind in Genesis 6? Do you say they were still sinless? If they are human why would god deistinguish them as sons of God instead of sons of mankind.

YOu now have the daughters of eve as mankinds daughters and these sons of God as something else. So who or what are these sons of God is not sons of mankind. After all youare the one who said they were created on teh sixth day so that makes them "adam"????

 

[Timtofly]

You keep insisiting the bene-elohim were the other humans God made apart from Adam and Eve. So they are part of mankind, for they are human.

Why does God distinguish them from the daughters of mankind in Genesis 6? Do you say they were still sinless? If they are human why would god deistinguish them as sons of God instead of sons of mankind.

I am sure you can figure out that Adam and Eve's corruptible fallen offspring had both males and females procreating with males and females from the offspring of those created on the 6th day.

It is you who add to Scripture making up "centuries" of life on earth before sin.

I pointed out that the Sabbath covered a 1,000 year period.

So during your made up "centuries", or the 1,000 years in Genesis 2, there were many generations of offspring from those created on the 6th day. All of them without sin, because none of them were Adam and Eve's offspring. They lived outside the Garden of Eden across the whole earth. Cain met them in the land of Nod.

That is just common sense that there were generations of humans called sons of God while Adam and Eve lived in the Garden.

They are named in Genesis 6, because that is when their narrative started. But they were created on day 6. At that point they were only called "them".

"And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth."

Adam was not even named in that verse. His narrative started in the next chapter.

Were mankind sinless? Were the sons of God sinless? Is the term mankind found in Genesis 1? The sons of God are mankind. The sons of God were male and female. The sons of God were created in God's image. A son is the image of the father. Even in the act of creating out of the dust of the ground. God did not birth the angels, so claiming an image or son of God has to be an angel makes no sense. Being a son of God describes humans prior to sin as well as humans restored to a state without sin. That is the same state of being.

Angels cannot sin nor loose an image they never had. Angels were never designated as male or female, because they don't have offspring. But when they appear to us, they appear as human males. That is not proof they are thee sons of God.

Your interpretation assumes angels add some sort of genetic advantages to sinful humans. No.

Adam's corruptible flesh downgraded the sons of God incorruptible physical flesh. Did the offspring inherent sin natures? Who knows? They did become more disobedient and acted contrary to the spirit part of who they were. God points out His Spirit would not continue to strive with them, that is their spiritual side. Their offspring were becoming demonic and they forced the spirit part of God's image to become reprobate.

We are not given specifics. We are told they became wicked.

"And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually."

The generations were becoming increasingly more separated from God.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

I am sure you can figure out that Adam and Eve's corruptible fallen offspring had both males and females procreating with males and females from the offspring of those created on the 6th day.

But that took over 1,000 years before it happened. Cuz it is you who said Adam and Eve didn't boink each other until after teh Lords Day which you say is 1,000 years! so the se sons of God had to wait over 1,000 years to boink a daughter of mankind.

It is you who add to Scripture making up "centuries" of life on earth before sin.

No, because you wrote earlier god placed Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden after the Lords day- which you say is 1,000 years. I am just quoting your version of the book of Genesis.

I pointed out that the Sabbath covered a 1,000 year period.

So during your made up "centuries", or the 1,000 years in Genesis 2, there were many generations of offspring from those created on the 6th day. All of them without sin, because none of them were Adam and Eve's offspring. They lived outside the Garden of Eden across the whole earth. Cain met them in the land of Nod.

and of course this is from the Book of timtofly. Which chapter and verse?

So the sons of God are daughters of God also? How long were they without sin? did they die? They were not from Adam and Eve so di dnot have the corruption of sin in them.



Those made up centuries vcover the 1,000 years of the Lords Day according to you when Adam and Eve had no kiddies!

Were mankind sinless? Were the sons of God sinless? Is the term mankind found in Genesis 1? The sons of God are mankind. The sons of God were male and female. The sons of God were created in God's image. A son is the image of the father. Even in the act of creating out of the dust of the ground. God did not birth the angels, so claiming an image or son of God has to be an angel makes no sense. Being a son of God describes humans prior to sin as well as humans restored to a state without sin. That is the same state of being.

So Adam was formed a son of God though he is not called a son of God? How did God make the other unlisted sons of God? Adam was sculpted but were the others spoken into existence? YOu said the sons of God were sinless- so that means they didn't die at all until the flood.

When did these sons of God sin ? It wasn't marrying the daughters of mankind, for that is never called a sin. So what sin did they commit? If they were sinless, why di dnot God choose a line from these sinless sons of God/mankind instead of sinful Adam to have Jesus born?

God did not birth the sons of God either! The only son God has is Jesus! God formed Adam from the dust. We don't know how He made these hyupothetical soins of God of yours that went all over the place having babies long before Adam and Eve did.

Angels cannot sin nor loose an image they never had. Angels were never designated as male or female, because they don't have offspring. But when they appear to us, they appear as human males. That is not proof they are thee sons of God.

Angels can't sin? Well what did Lucifer and the 1/3 that were kicked out of heaven do? Angels always appear as males and teh known named angles have male names- I would safely say they are male. So no they cannot have babies in heaven, just like men cannot have babies on earth. But teh sons of God who saw the daughters of mankind ( not Adam, but mankind) did have babvies with teh daughters of mankind. And if god called them Sons of God in Genesis 6- then by your philosophizing- they were satill sinless when they boinked the daughters of mankind! Otherwise, why would they still be called the sons of god. Why not just call them the sons of mankind, if that is what they were? After all adam was a son Fo god as well and He has been relegated by to to sinful corrupt flesh.

Your interpretation assumes angels add some sort of genetic advantages to sinful humans. No.

We are natural. Angels are super natural. what is natural for them is very well called miraculous by us. They can fly, they don't die, they can radiate massive glory. One angel can put 10,000 foes to flight among many other things we can't. Ido not know exactly what their offspring were and were not capable of, but given history and how a truth gets corrupted over time and distance, I theorize that the pagan myths of tthe gods and demigods is a corruption of lief before the flood when the bene-elohim saw that the bat-adamah were pretty, married them and had kiddies who were strong, valiant, tyrannical, tall and famous!

We are not given specifics. We are told they became wicked.

That hasn't stopped you from creating the fanciful narratives you have crafted from your fertile imagination so far! Why do you stop here. But you did say earlier their sin was they wanted autonomy from god so they married the corrupt flesh of the bat-adamah or daughters of mankind. Don't you even remember your own tales?

"And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually."

The generations were becoming increasingly more separated from God.

so when did teh bene-elohim sin and stop being the bene-elohim and became like adams sons, the bene-adamah or sons of mankind. If they became just as corrupt as Adams offspring as your story goes, then when did they stop being the sons of God like Adam did and simply become sons of mankind? thse are words god specifically used in the bible for a reason so I am using them.

 

[Timtofly]

So Adam was formed a son of God though he is not called a son of God? How did God make the other unlisted sons of God? Adam was sculpted but were the others spoken into existence? YOu said the sons of God were sinless- so that means they didn't die at all until the flood.

When did these sons of God sin ? It wasn't marrying the daughters of mankind, for that is never called a sin. So what sin did they commit? If they were sinless, why di dnot God choose a line from these sinless sons of God/mankind instead of sinful Adam to have Jesus born?

God did not birth the sons of God either! The only son God has is Jesus! God formed Adam from the dust. We don't know how He made these hyupothetical soins of God of yours that went all over the place having babies long before Adam and Eve did.

The verse claimed the giants were before, so yes 1,000 years on earth before Seth.

All sons of God were created the same way on day 6. From the ground in God's image.

The angels rebelled and stopped working, left their estate. Call that whatever you want, but still does not make angels the sons of God.

I never said the sons of God wanted autonomy. Go back and chat with that poster if you want to argue that point. Stick with Scripture when making a reply. You just add way too much garbage in your post, to even reply to. All you do is avoid the fact the sons of God were humans created on the 6th day.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

The verse claimed the giants were before, so yes 1,000 years on earth before Seth.

All sons of God were created the same way on day 6. From the ground in God's image.

The angels rebelled and stopped working, left their estate. Call that whatever you want, but still does not make angels the sons of God.

I never said the sons of God wanted autonomy. Go back and chat with that poster if you want to argue that point. Stick with Scripture when making a reply. You just add way too much garbage in your post, to even reply to. All you do is avoid the fact the sons of God were humans created on the 6th day.

1. You do realize that between Adams fall and Noah was a little over 1600 years don't you? that is more than enough time for the nephilim to exist without your mythical sons of God boinking the other mythical sons of god and producing people all over the place.

2. How do you know they were formed that way. the bible said God formed man singular not plural from the dust of the ground. what source do you say it is plural and God formed whole multitudes that way?

3. How do you know angels stopped working? Where do you get that specific information. why does God call angels sons of God in the three other occasions it is used in the OT but not here?? The bible makes angels known as sons of god!
4. I don't avoid a fact. There is no fact there! we have just your opinion that whole bunches of humans were created on day six. When the bible says god formed man singular! It is you who throws in all this conjecture and personal opinion to the bible. Not I.

You have these mythical mankind procreating all over the land and producing a race of men you would call teh sons of God. But yet in Genesis 6 God specifically distinguishes these sons of God and the daughters of mankind! You call the sons of God mankind but they are held different than the daughters of mankind.

So you cam up with all this garbage about eve not being th emother of all living and that Adam was lying and boasting- and failed to prove it! Every other lie God made sure made it in the bible is labelled or exposed as a lie in the context. But not this one- we have to have you tell us it is a lie!

YOu have these mythical sons of God who are mankind sinless and tehn have them sin some how some way without teh bible telling us!

YOu are rewriting Genesis so it is filled with conjecture, supposition, maybes could bes and whatever popped up in your fertile imagination.

 

[Timtofly]

3. How do you know angels stopped working? Where do you get that specific information. why does God call angels sons of God in the three other occasions it is used in the OT

This is not correct. The sons of God are never angels any where in Scripture. They are humans in heaven with God.

 

[BeyondET]

With the help of the Lord no wonder pain wasn't very much, certainly with a man, why not man child or male child but a man
Genesis 4
1And Adam had relations with his wife Eve, and she conceived and gave birth to Cain.

“With the help of the LORD I have brought forth a man,” she said.

 

[ewq1938]

With the help of the Lord no wonder pain wasn't very much, certainly with a man, why not man child or male child but a man

You appear to be suggesting Eve gave birth to an adult man. That is ridiculous.

 

[Davy]

This is not correct. The sons of God are never angels any where in Scripture. They are humans in heaven with God.

Job 2 shows you are wrong about that.

 

[Timtofly]

Job 2 shows you are wrong about that.

Job 2 shows you are wrong that humans are banned from heaven.

Adam's offspring was banned. Adam messed up his chance to stand in that same council. Now all of his offspring had to wait until the Cross to even enter Paradise.

The sons of God did not even get that option when they sinned against God. Is it against God's Word that the sons of God created on the 6th Day were removed from the mess prior to their offspring going all sheol in the face of God?

I mean that is what is said about the "Watchers". I am not basing my point on futile mythology. But even the repentant church out of Adam's dead corruptible flesh is allowed in Paradise at the Second Coming. Does not make the church a bunch of angels.

The 24 elders are before the throne. Are you going to start calling them angels as well?

Job points out those sons of God created on the 6th Day did not all rebel against God but were taken to heaven to sit in council with God. That is proven, because even 24 elders of Adam's dead corruptible flesh were changed out of their corruptible flesh to sit as elders with God. Why would God change how He does things?

 

[Davy]

Job 2 shows you are wrong that humans are banned from heaven.

Adam's offspring was banned. Adam messed up his chance to stand in that same council. Now all of his offspring had to wait until the Cross to even enter Paradise.

The sons of God did not even get that option when they sinned against God. Is it against God's Word that the sons of God created on the 6th Day were removed from the mess prior to their offspring going all sheol in the face of God?

I mean that is what is said about the "Watchers". I am not basing my point on futile mythology. But even the repentant church out of Adam's dead corruptible flesh is allowed in Paradise at the Second Coming. Does not make the church a bunch of angels.

The 24 elders are before the throne. Are you going to start calling them angels as well?

Job points out those sons of God created on the 6th Day did not all rebel against God but were taken to heaven to sit in council with God. That is proven, because even 24 elders of Adam's dead corruptible flesh were changed out of their corruptible flesh to sit as elders with God. Why would God change how He does things?

Your false claim is that the "sons of God" are never angels. Job 2 proves you wrong, for those "sons of God" there which appeared IN HEAVEN before God's Throne, along with Satan, WERE ANGELS.

So you trying to bring in FODDER like the idea of humans is moot.

 

[BeyondET]

You appear to be suggesting Eve gave birth to an adult man. That is ridiculous.

Yea be extreme I find humorous though the verse doesn't say boy or child but a man lol.

Ridiculous in that probably unlikely though God did create a man from dust a woman from a rib wouldn't be impossible.

I read Chapter 4 before 3 little different