Leaderboard

And by this definition, the "sons of God" would not defy God to breed with human women. Even IF spirit beings did this (and I don't believe it) they would NOT have been "sons of God". They would have been "sons of" their father the Devil.

I am so honored to introduce you to my friend of over 30 years, Beth Petersen. At age 84, her running is such an inspiration. She was featured in the LA times, and now in this new article in the Pacific Union Recorder. Just click on each picture, to be able to see the entire page.

But we have to remember that truth, even in the Bible is progressive. The original understanding was that YAHWEH was the most high God, the king of the gods and the sons of god were the other gods who were below him. Later it was developed that he was not only the king of the gods but their creator and their life depended on their faithfulness to him. Then by Isaiah we get to pure monotheism where Yahweh is no longer just the King of the gods but that he is the ONLY God, and from this the sons of the gods became the false gods of the other nations, finally after contact with the Persians, the understanding was that the sons of the gods did not exist that they were angels some faithful to God and others in rebellion.

This answers well the misconception that Samie posits regarding the demons being the "sons of God." It is clear from the Bible that they were not so titled. And, we agree, neither demons nor angels could physically reproduce with humans. They don't even do so with angels! Then what would it mean? If the demons were here before the Flood, and they were here during and after it, to where did the Flood take them? Obviously, no matter how you look at it, the demons were not "taken" by the Flood any more than Noah and his family were.

And without documentation - this is hearsay.

Look at the difference between how God directed Israel to treat it's enemies in general: "When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. 11 If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. 12 If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. 13 When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. 14 As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the Lord your God gives you from your enemies. 15 This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby." (Deuteronomy 20:10 -15) On the other hand, look how God instructs them to treat those people groups infected with the Nephilim "gene": "However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. 17 Completely destroy[a] them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the Lord your God has commanded you. 18 Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against the Lord your God." (ibid, vs. 16-18) These same people groups are mentioned as objects of complete destruction several times in the OT. Joshua carried out the Lord's command everywhere, EXCEPT: " No Anakites were left in Israelite territory; only in Gaza, Gath and Ashdod did any survive." (Josh 11:22) Who were Israel's nemesis for several centuries after Joshua? Gaza, Gath, and Ashdod. Why? because until the time of David, the remnants of the Nephilim (rebellious "wanna be gods" and their followers) resided there until the time of David.

"When human beings began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of humans were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. Then the Lord said, “My Spirit will not contend with humans forever, for they are mortal[b]; their days will be a hundred and twenty years.” The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown. (Gen. 6:1-4) A plain reading of scripture almost demands that "sons of God" are created divine beings. When we try to spiritualize everything that doesn't make sense to our modern Western logical scientific minds, you can contort scripture into anything you want. the "and also afterward" indicates that these Nephilim were around after the flood. God commanded the Israelites completely destroy the people groups is Canaan that were "infected" so to speak with the Nephilim "gene". The failed to do so along the coast (the land of the Philistines and Gath); and they suffered the consequences up until all of the "giants (like Goliath and his brothers) were destroyed in the time of David. If you want to spiritualize away the natural reading of an historical book just because you think it's weird, be careful. It's not much of a stretch from denying that a "son of God" can impregnate a human woman to thinking it's ridiculous that God's spirit impregnated a woman named Mary who birthed Jesus; or impregnated an 80 year-old woman (maybe older) who birthed the nation of Israel.

That is pretty amazing. That woman looks like she might be in her 50s rathen than her mid 80s.

Ellen White was a human being who should not be believed to be either to have had a complete and total knowledge of any Biblical truth. In addition, she should not be believed to be without error in anything. As she taught, the Bible was the standard that god had given us to be the final authority in everything needed for our spiritual life and growth today. From this perspective, one must be prepared to find in some manner that EGW held a belief that was not in harmony with the Biblical teaching. Such does not distract from the fact that God gave this developing SDA denomination a gift in the work and ministry of EGW. It should not cause us to dismiss and discard her ministry. Unfortunately, there are those today who believe otherwise.

It is easier to wear slippers than to carpet the whole world.

Of course at the end of his life James White wrote and told his friends that he was starting to find the arguments for the trinity more convincing than the arguments against it. But I guess we should follow the younger less experienced James White instead of the older wiser James White.

I agree with you whbae. The context of what you started this thread with was not only current church members, but the local leaders of the church. Yes, there should be a standard for them and for church members. I do not see you applying this dress standard to someone walking in off the street. Who cares what they wear? I do not and I do not think that was the thrust of your point in starting this thread. We go to church to meet God and it is only respectful to dress as well as we can afford to when we meet Him. I doubt anyone who has told you that you are wrong in thinking a dress code is needed would show up in jeans/cutoffs/shorts and a tshirt if invited to the White House or governors mansion of the state they live in. Not a one would show that kind of disrespect to earthly authorities. God deserves no less respect than they do. He deserves far more than they do.

I'm from the "old school" where it was expected that we dress in our best when we had an appointment with God. It doesn't matter if our "best" is a flannel shirt and jeans, or a silk dress. However, if it's 100° in the shade, and there's no AC, God doesn't want anyone to have a heatstroke from wearing a wool suit and tie. We need to use some common sense...

In my experience, reacting negatively to such things as parody, satire, etc, is seldom helpful or productive use of ones energy or time. If there presumed to be any truth to it by anyone, particularly the creator of it, the defensive reaction tends validate that point and expose a vulnerability. It tends to encourage more of the same. And a pattern of reacting (over-reacting may be more correct) every perceived slight or minor annoyance or inconsequential "attack" just creates a perception of being thin-skinned and peevish. Better to smile and carry on with more important things... IMHO.

And in the US, God took the kingdom from Obama and gave it to Trump, didn't He?

Can the "sons of God" who shouted for joy when earth's foundation was being laid, possibly refer to human beings? I don't think so. Adam was not yet created that point in time. If the "sons of God" can refer to both angels and human beings, can you cite any biblical basis why "sons of God" cannot refer to angels in Gen 6:2 - 4?

From todays sermon.....'our special values and beliefs are less important than loving one another'.

They aren't "different groups." They are one and the same. "Sons of God" always refers to those who receive God and are obedient to His laws. This group is inclusive of heavenly as well as human beings. "But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God . . ." (John 1:12). Essentially, "sons of God" is synonymous with "saints."

Gary, if that's what you want to believe, that's fine. But don't presume to patronize me regarding what I do or do not understand. I'm not interested in debating the value of your beliefs or standards vs. mine.

this allows churches to become political machines much like a new law allowed corporations to become political machines. this cannot be good. Jesus said my kingdom is not of this world. to render to God what is God's and to render to Cesar what is Cesar's.

As quoted by phkrause from Barnes: I can't see the biblical basis given for the statement I bolded in red. Matt 22:30 EXPLICITLY characterizes the angels IN HEAVEN, not the ones on earth who sided with Satan's rebellion. The claim that angels "were not created as a race, have no distinction of sex, and therefore no sexual desire" and most likely trying to portray that angels are NOT able to procreate and reproduce, is unfounded in Scriptures. What does it mean to be created as a race? Are animals a race they are able to procreate? Plants have no distinction of sex nor have sexual desire but are able to reproduce both sexually and asexually. If these lower life forms have the capability to procreate and reproduce, how can we come to the conclusion that the angels are NOT able to either procreate or reproduce? Is there any basis both in the written word and in nature of such angelic inability? To not marry or not given in marriage does not preclude one from having the ability to procreate or reproduce. I don't think Moses who wrote Job and Genesis will use the same phrase "ben elohim" to refer to different groups. If in his use of "ben elohim" in Job he was clearly referring to angels, why would his use of the same phrase in Genesis be taken as referring to humans? If he was able to use " bath Adam" (daughters of men) for the human females, why would he not use "ben Adam" (sons of men) if he was indeed referring to humans, as he in fact did in Gen 11:5?

I believe it refers to angels, specifically evil angels. How so? First, we will let the Bible be its own interpreter, in finding out from the sacred pages of the OT as to who does the phrase “sons of God” refer to. The phrase “sons of God” in the OT occurs 5 times in the KJV (Gen 6:2, 4; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7) This phrase is from the Hebrew ~yhiêl{a/h' ynEåB.. (transliterated Bünê hä´élöhîm, or let's just say ben elohim, for simplicity). Job 1:6 & 2:1 tell us of a certain day when these “ben elohim” are to present themselves before the LORD. During that particular date with God, Satan was among them. It can be inferred that Satan is of the same level as these “sons of God” who presented themselves before the LORD. KJV Job 2:1 Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD. In verse 8, "And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil?" Notice God's description of Job: none like him in the earth, perfect and upright man. If the phrase "ben elohim" refers to Seth's descendants which is claimed as the righteous line of Adam's descendants, then Job must be with those "ben elohim" who presented themselves before the LORD, since there is none in earth like him. But he was not with them. When God confronted Job, He asked him: Job 38:4-6 4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. 5 Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? 6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof? And then He told Job what transpired when the foundation of the earth was laid: KJV Job 38:7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? The “sons of God” were already existent when the foundations of the earth were but being laid by the Creator PRIOR to the creation of man. Hence, the “sons of God” can not be humans and we are left with no other option but to conclude that they are angels. But why do I believe that the angels in Gen 6:1-4 are evil? It is because of the simple reason based on the words of Christ that angels in heaven do not marry. Matthew 22:30 30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven. Mark 12:25 25 For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven. For me, it is highly possible, that the angels of Gen 6:1-4, being on earth instead of in heaven, are those who sided and were cast down to earth with Satan. Hence, evil angels. What more, their intermarrying with humans simply showed that indeed they are evil, because angels are not supposed to marry, as what I understand from the words of our Lord. The observation that angels do not marry because they have no sexual capability has no support of Scriptures. Most eunuchs don’t marry, but that doesn’t mean they are not capable of procreating. Potiphar, Joseph’s master in Egypt, was a eunuch, but he had a wife. See Gen 39: 7, 19, 20. In my first post relative to this issue, Scriptures were presented that negate the prevalent belief that Seth's descendants comprise the righteous branch of Adam's descendants. In those verses, God Himself pronounced that it was only Noah who God found righteous in His sight. Hence, the claim that "sons of God" refer to Seth's descendants can't hold water. In this post, Scriptures were presented where God Himself told Job that prior to creating Adam, there were already "ben elohim" who were shouting for joy. Hence, "ben elohim" or "sons of God" in the OT cannot possibly refer to humans. Therefore, the phrase "sons of God" in the OT can only refer to angels and those who intermarried with the "daughters of men" are evil angels.