Leaderboard

You prove that yourself, that's what make this statement unbelievable, so I thank you! And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, Gen 6:1 Now the verse plainly begins with the multiplication of daughters were born by them. Then Bible said very clearly; And YAHWEH said, MY SPIRIT shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. Gen 6:3 Are we not all of us rational and intelligent individuals? Now, why would HE not say strive with the angels and man? If these were angels YAHWEH would permit such an unaccountable thing and not explicitly only charge the flesh beings in the act without charging the angels? The same angels mind you that had war in Heaven and lost. THE CREATORS would just let this most unusual incident just go and a flood could destroy the superhumans? Now, this reminds me of the Greek god Zeus who was having sex with earthly women and oh yeah produce Apollo, Hercules and other superhumans. Seem like these superbeings are hanging around now right? If water can killed thes whatever mix with angels, why not do the same thing instead of fire? So, this one Text states these were angels can you show me where? YAHWEH just let this incident goes and YAHSHUA says were are going act like the day of Noah, how is that if they are mix with angels? We must going to have angels doing again today right? Let's take a look at the word giants in Gen 6: The Hebrew word is "nephı̂yl nephil," so this mean enormously tall beings, let say like the Greek version of giants? Strange that is not what Strong Hebrew Dictionary states at all! He states that this word means: properly, a feller, that is, a bully or tyrant. Now why would the KJV scholar use the English word giant is clear how they thought and believed: 1300, "fabulous man-like creature of enormous size," from Old French geant, earlier jaiant "giant, ogre" (12c.), from Vulgar Latin *gagantem (nominative gagas), from Latin gigas "a giant," from Greek Gigas (usually in plural, Gigantes), one of a race of divine but savage and monstrous beings (personifying destructive natural forces), sons of Gaia and Uranus, eventually destroyed by the gods. The word is of unknown origin, probably from a pre-Greek language. Derivation from gegenes "earth-born" is considered untenable. It replaced Old English ent, eoten, also gigant (from Latin). The Greek word was used in Septuagint to refer to men of great size and strength, hence the expanded use in modern languages. . . Etymology Dictionary No reference at all from the Bible and I also check with biblehub.com and strangely the NAS Exhaustive Concordance states: From naphal -Definition: "giants," name of two peoples, one before the flood and one after the flood. So, the word giants are name of two peoples before and after the flood, really! That's a definition?? Well the actual Hebrew word; "râphâ' râphâh," that is use for giant/giants, and means person of height were many tribes of the Canaanites. Some of the Canaanite were bullies or tyrants. And the Hebrew word "nephil," is use about these tall people. The verse Num 13:32 clearly states they were people of great size. Now, these were the other eight spies claiming that Israel to them were like locust, the actual word that should have been used. Meaning because of their height "râphâ' and their mind set, "nephil," they were highly conceited people. Caleb and Joshua felt they could take these high mind sons of Anak. The word "nephil," is only mention here and in Gen 6:4. The Bible even mentions the length and size of the bed of the tall Canaanites using the correct Hebrew word "râphâ.' Keep in mind that Goliath was a "râphâ', also but the Philistines came from Mizraim, Canaan's second older brother! Gen 10:13,14 That is so true because Adam was created from the beginning as the son of ELOHIYM! We certainly agree! And that was predestined from the very beginning and through reconciliation by YAHSHUA, we are brought back into the family of beings created as again as sons and daughters of THE MOST HIGH. So, Adam was a son meant Seth was a son, mean Enos was a son, which meant Cainan was a son, which Maleleel was a son, Jared was a son, which Enoch was a son and Methuselah was a son, Lamech was a son, Noah was a son and Shem, Ham, and Japheth were sons of THE MOST HIGH! If you notice the Scriptures in Genesis states this: This is the book of the genealogy of Aḏam. In the day that ELOHIYM created the Adams, made in the likeness of ELOHIYM; Male and female HE created them, and HE Blessed them, and called their name ‘Aḏam’ in the day they were created. And Aḏam lived one hundred and thirty years, and brought forth a son in his own likeness, after his image, and called his name Shĕth. Gen 5:1-3 Scriptures 98+ Cain, nor his descendants were mention in the generations of righteous Adam. Here is the true reason why: And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon THE NAME of YAHWEH. Gen 4:26 These sons of Adam who were sons of YAHWEH begin to call on THE MOST HIGH. Where Cain's descendants were not sons of YAHWEH, nor the did they have true RESEMBLANCE or LIKENESS of YAHWEH like Seth did. So, I thankful for Luke that I forgot, which shows that THE HOLY SPIRIT used Blessed Man to bring out the Scripture of truth more clearly! That is how HE works. Truth will not come back void! I am sorry Joe that is not how the Hebrew Text and grammar provides it at all. You are right we can again on what I stated earlier. Matter of fact you brought it out so well with predestination, reconcile, and adoption! Again it is THE HOLY SPIRIT that will bring out the truth using HIS own instruments. Showing that YAHWEH'S WORDS WILL NOT COME BACK VOID! You know, I notice that you all become so hostile when stating your point, why? Truth is a humbling matter not an angry and becoming all upset. I also told you all that YAHWEH made it very clear; For unto which of the angels said HE at any time, Thou art MY SON, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him A FATHER, and he shall be to ME a son? Heb 1:5 Well, those are the words that straight from the Bible. It is sad, when the Bible states clearly, not to add or subtract from the Bible. There are no Greek and Europeans mythology in the Bible and it is on record where all this comes from. You cannot mix fairy tales with the Bible, they do not mix. Can I personally make any of you believe the above facts? No, I can't, but I will stand on the Word of THE MOST HIGH! I can present it and you all aided me yourselves. It is up to you to either believe the true Hebrews words and their meanings, or take the KJV translators of the Middle Ages. That's your choice and again, I have made mine. I am not here to win a prize or a debate, I am here to present the truth according to the actual Hebrew and Greek words and meanings of the Bible. I can only ask one thing all of all sincere people, who like me want to be saved. Pray and allow THE HOLY SPIRIT to lead you! I have nothing to gain but only my soul and that my friends is my only concern and nothing else! Pray for me as I pray for you as well! May YAHWEH bless you, may HE shine HIS FACE upon you and give you peace! Happy Sabbath

I like that.

Beautiful poem, BM! It would make a beautiful "call song". You are quite the poet. I'll bet your toes are "long fellows"! ?

You left a verse out: "Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan, Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God." (Luke 3:37-38) Adam was the only one in the list who was declared to be a son of God. Why Adam and none of the others? Because Adam was a direct creation of God. In a sense, NT believers can legitimately be called "sons of God" because they are a "new creation": "Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new." (2 Cor. 5:17)

That poem is something else! I would like to see it get the recognition that it deserves. I suggest that you submit it to SPECTRUM.

Come Unto Me Come Unto Me (Mat 11:28) Do hurts of this world; cares of your life Crush the heart’s hope; pierce like a knife? The Savior still speaks surely to thee: ‘If ye so labor, come unto Me.’ Families break up, by death do we part Temptations assault, sinking the heart. The Savior still speaks surely to thee: ‘If ye so labor, Come unto Me.’ The hurting soul says ‘Can’t come at all!’ As they toss and turn against His call. The Savior still speaks surely to thee: ‘If ye so labor, Come unto Me.’ Are you dark or lonely, do you sadly frown? Are you sick or fearful, or lonely or down? The Savior still speaks surely to thee: ‘If ye so labor, Come unto Me.’ You’re mad or glad, or rich or poor? You can’t resist some evil lure? The Savior still speaks surely to thee: ‘If ye so labor, Come unto Me.’ The story of your life may be Galilee Raging turmoil, no hope you see. The Savior still speaks surely to thee: ‘If ye so labor, Come unto Me.’ Come unto Jesus; and “rest” you’ll find Whenever a burden shall tie or bind Your Savior still speaks surely to thee: ‘If ye so labor, Come unto Me.’ - by BlessedMan, copyright 2019, all rights reserved, worldwide

Job 1:6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them. 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. Despite triumphant challenges to "show me one text that says beings other than the angels or Christ are called the sons of God" there are Biblical viewpoints which would certainly challenge this idea. One, initial suggestion here would simply be a question: "why would it be so important to "prove" as fact that "sons of God" MUST mean either "angels or Christ?" Would that be because of a Biblical statement that actually says that, or would it be better to relate it to just the context of the passage in the book of Job where it talks about "the sons of God?" Our answer to this could make quite a difference. For this post, let us simply consider a brief survey on all of the verses that mention "sons of God..." Sons of God. The LXX translates the phrase, (from Job 1:6) as “angels of God;” BUT is that actually a 100% beyond any doubt FACT; if we just consider Job 1:6 apart from the intended context? Looking at Job 1:6 however, we can likely safely conclude that the phrase "before The Lord" does not indicate to us exactly where this might have been, so there is no easy way to decide where this took place. Some say "it had to be in heaven," but there are other possibilities. I personally don't see why it would be super-important to decide that said "sons of God" were angels, or humans. The texts above, 6-11 seem to open up other considerations. "NOW are we the sons of God," from 1 John 3:2 certainly tells a different story. WE are NOW sons [and daughters] of God. I disagree with the SDABC note on this which insists that Job 1:6 and similar texts are ONLY talking about angels. It suggests, on the basis of Col 1:15 that Angels, like humans, are created; and that is true. No argument there. So now we arrive at my question from above: "why do we need to prove that its only talking about "angels" and Satan? What Biblical doctrine, or truth, do we need to see it that way for? What difference would it make if I tried to say that "sons [and daughters] of God" means human beings? Would THAT opinion take away from any Biblical truths? If we look at Strong's #H1121, which is whats used in Job 1:6 or Job 2:1, we see that that word is more used in the various contexts describing human beings. It could mean "son," or "daughter," or even in the figural sense such as "nation." The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew Definitions makes this very interesting: BDB Definition: 1) son, grandson, child, member of a group 1a) son, male child 1b) grandson 1c) children (plural - male and female) 1d) youth, young men (plural) 1e) young (of animals) 1f) sons (as characterisation, i.e. sons of injustice [for unrighteous men] or sons of God [for angels]) 1g) people (of a nation) (plural) 1h) of lifeless things, i.e. sparks, stars, arrows (figuratively) 1i) a member of a guild, order, class Aside from a relatively unsupported interpretation in the LXX defining the word "sons" as "angel," I don't see a lot of support contextually, or textually for insisting it must mean ONLY angels and Satan. If we look at the first 5 verses of Job, chapter one, it is talking about Jobs 7 sons and three daughters, so why on earth would it suddenly for verse 6 switch context over to "angels" like that? It would certainly fit if we called Job's sons and daughters "children" [sons & daughters] of God, and that when they presented to God, the devil was right there trying to usurp. It really doesn't make sense to me to insist that it suddenly switched over to "angels" with Satan alongside them; for when he does his work as "accuser of the brethren" there can be no doubt that this commonly happens to us, in addition to, or besides, with angels.

when visitors are interacting during the sermon when they are intoxicated or high, it takes a bit more tact and care to keep things flowing respectfully.