 |
Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
composer2005
Fierce Wolf
Joined: 14 Jul 2007
Posts: 561
|
 Posted: Thu Dec 20, 2007 5:07 pm Post subject: Gen. 6: 4 KJV |
 |
|
Taken from the Thread "Is it True?
| TBax wrote: | | . . . lone, you missed the context. 1 Pet 3:19-20 is about the angels that sinned, |
Impossible. Heavenly angels can never sin.
#1:
1. For the wages of sin [is] death; . . . (Rom. 6:23) KJS
2. ALL heavenly angels never die (Luke 20:36) KJS
If you can never die, then you can never sin (Cyclic reasoning)
#2: If some "think / claim" that there are a total of TWO classes consisting of - 1. heavenly and 2. ex-heavenly angels, and therefore some (i.e. class 2.) are somehow NOT God's angels any longer, then please provide evidence to substantiate that claim.
| TBax wrote: | | . . . forsook their own proper dwelling place, and had intercoarse with the daughters of men. The who had once been disobedient when the patience of God was waiting in Noah’s days should have tipped you off |
You conveniently left out the part that your alleged naughty angels actually 'narried' these women -
That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they [were] fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. (Gen. 6: 2) KJV
Again this is impossible -
For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven. (Matt. 22:30) KJV
IF you claim they can marry because they are not in heaven then I again refer you to - (#1 & #2 above)
There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare [children] to them, the same [became] mighty men which [were] of old, men of renown. 5 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. {every...: or, the whole imagination: the Hebrew word signifieth not only the imagination, but also the purposes and desires} {continually: Heb. every day} 6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. 7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them. {both...: Heb. from man unto beast} (Gen. 6:4 - 7) KJV
"Sons of God" can refer to angels as it may in Job 38:7, but the expression is also used of men. (See Deut. 14:1, R.S.V.; Hosea 1:10; Luke 3:38; John 1:12; 1 John 3:1). In Genesis 6:2 the "sons of God" were the righteous line of Seth (Genesis 4:26)2 intermarrying with evil Cainites. (WRESTED SCRIPTURES)
Why did the J.W's God only see the wickedness of men (vs. 5)
Why did the J.W God only destroy mankind and the animals etc and not the naughty J.W fallen heavenly angels?
It is sometimes contended that only angel-human offspring could produce "nephilim" (mighty ones or giants, cf. Gen. 6:4). But the sons of Anak (Num. 13:33) were also giants, ("nephilim") and these were certainly not angel-human offspring, as they existed long after the flood. (Extract from WRESTED SCRIPTURES)
Thank you |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
ragman13
Labrador
Joined: 07 Jul 2007
Posts: 322
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 20, 2007 6:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Composer even though I disagree with you on the subject of angels sinning I do agree with you about Gen. 6 not referring to angels.
The "sons of God" refer to God's elect of Seth's line. God's elect line was corrupted from His elect marrying into the family of Cain.
As For your view that angels can not sin, I refer to my last post in your thread "is this true." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TBax
King of the Jungle
Joined: 24 Oct 2005
Posts: 1942
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 21, 2007 2:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
ragman13,,
Hi, 
| ragman wrote: | | The "sons of God" refer to God's elect of Seth's line. God's elect line was corrupted from His elect marrying into the family of Cain. |
Do you have any scriptures that support that?
The Bible interprets itself. Who are these ones?
Job 38:7 When the morning stars joyfully cried out together,
And all the sons of God began shouting in applause?
(Job 2:1) Afterward it came to be the day when the sons of the [true] God entered to take their station before Jehovah, and Satan also proceeded to enter right among them to take his station before Jehovah. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atoz
Emperor of the Solar System
Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Posts: 4189
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 21, 2007 6:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TBax wrote: | ragman13,,
Hi,
| ragman wrote: | | The "sons of God" refer to God's elect of Seth's line. God's elect line was corrupted from His elect marrying into the family of Cain. |
Do you have any scriptures that support that?
The Bible interprets itself. Who are these ones?
Job 38:7 When the morning stars joyfully cried out together,
And all the sons of God began shouting in applause?
(Job 2:1) Afterward it came to be the day when the sons of the [true] God entered to take their station before Jehovah, and Satan also proceeded to enter right among them to take his station before Jehovah. |
Luke 3:
38
Which was the son of Enos,
which was the son of Seth,
which was the son of Adam,
which was the son of God.
with Love,
atoz |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
composer2005
Fierce Wolf
Joined: 14 Jul 2007
Posts: 561
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 21, 2007 6:50 pm Post subject: J.W's |
|
|
| Tbax wrote: |
(Job 2:1) Afterward it came to be the day when the sons of the [true] God entered to take their station before Jehovah, and Satan also proceeded to enter right among them to take his station before Jehovah. |
For thou art not a God that hath pleasure in wickedness: Evil shall not sojourn with thee. (Psalm 5: 4) ASV (My Bold)
#Strong's concordance renders: 'sojourn': -
1a1) to sojourn, dwell for a time
1a2) to abide, stay, temporarily dwell
1a1) to sojourn, dwell for a time
1a2) to abide, stay, temporarily dwell
NB: Evil can never stay in God's presence even for a brief or short or temporary time whatsoever.
1b2) to assemble oneself
2) to stir up trouble, strife, quarrel, gather together
NB: Evil may not 'assemble nor stir up trouble or strife nor even be allowed to 'gather up together' in God's presence. Let alone the ridiculous teaching that God permits a contradiction to His Scriptural Word that He would never allow such a thing let alone permit a 'War' to take place in His heaavenly domain.
To 'claim' therefore that God permits evil to enter His heavenly domain or His presence even for a short period of time or for any purpose, is impossible!
Satan consistently means simply 'adversary'.
The specific identity of this 'adversary' is not given. Regardless, it could never be an 'evil' of any kind, let alone this alleged evil fallen heavenly angel being (if such a ridiculous thing did literally exist)
To leave the presence of the Lord (Job 1:12) does not require Satan ("adversary", A.V. mg., Job 1:6) to have had access to the dwelling place of God in heaven. Cain "went out from the presence of the LORD" (Gen. 4:16) and he certainly was not in heaven. (Extract from: WRESTED SCRIPTURES) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TBax
King of the Jungle
Joined: 24 Oct 2005
Posts: 1942
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 22, 2007 3:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
atoz,
| atoz wrote: | Luke 3:
38
Which was the son of Enos,
which was the son of Seth,
which was the son of Adam,
which was the son of God. |
Adam was a son of God. He was created perfect, but when he chose to sin he became imperfect passing sin and imperfection on to his offspring. Your quote is true in that Seth was in the Mesaiah's line of decent. Yet it doesn't support the other claims made by ragman, that Seth's decendents were considered these "sons of the true God", and that the marrying the daughters of men indicated marrying into Cain's family. Noah was in Seth's line of decent, yet he isn't refered to or included as a "son of the true God" in Gen. It is talking about something different.
The Bible interprets itself. Who are these ones?
Job 38:7 When the morning stars joyfully cried out together,
And all the sons of God began shouting in applause?
(Job 2:1) Afterward it came to be the day when the sons of the [true] God entered to take their station before Jehovah, and Satan also proceeded to enter right among them to take his station before Jehovah. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
composer2005
Fierce Wolf
Joined: 14 Jul 2007
Posts: 561
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 22, 2007 1:00 pm Post subject: J.W's |
|
|
| TBax wrote: | | Adam . . . . . was created perfect, . . . |
Where does it say this?
| TBax wrote: | | (Job 2:1) Afterward it came to be the day when the sons of the [true] God entered to take their station before Jehovah, and Satan also proceeded to enter right among them to take his station before Jehovah.[/color] |
1. It doesn't state that this 'Adversary' was a Son of God it only states this Adversary was 'among them.'
2. For thou art not a God that hath pleasure in wickedness: Evil shall not sojourn with thee. (Psalm 5:4) ASV
#Strong's concordance renders: 'sojourn': -
1a1) to sojourn, dwell for a time
1a2) to abide, stay, temporarily dwell
NB: Evil can never stay in God's presence even for a brief or short or temporary time whatsoever. (My Bold)
a) Because evil can never enter God's presence obviously this 'adversary' can not be an evil fallen heavenly angel literal spirit being. b) Fallen heavenly angel spirit beings do not literally exist.
1a. For the wages of sin [is] death; . . . (Rom. 6:23) KJV
2a. ALL heavenly angels never die (Luke 20:36) KJV
If you can never die, then you can never sin.
If some "think / claim" that there are a total of TWO classes consisting of - 1. heavenly and 2. ex-heavenly angels, and therefore some (i.e. class 2.) are somehow NOT God's angels any longer, then please provide evidence to substantiate that claim?
c) Satan in never a proper name it is simply a Hebrew Term meaning 'adversary'.
Thank you |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TBax
King of the Jungle
Joined: 24 Oct 2005
Posts: 1942
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 22, 2007 3:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
composer, 
| composer wrote: | #1: Let us use TBax' own analogy -
Is my Satan a prince? Yes! (Eph. 2: 2 says so)
Is my Satan an angel? Yes!
Tbax deduces - Does that mean prince means angel? NO!
synonymous adj. (often foll. by with) 1 having the same meaning. 2 suggestive of; associated with (his name is synonymous with terror). (Pocket Oxford Dictionary / POD)
And still TBax denies they are synonymous but it is proven by his own analogy that they are?
|
Against the understanding of the entire world, you have proved that "prince" and "angel" are synonymous!!! 
Well, in that case, since Jesus is a prince that makes him an angel!
Since Satan is a prince, that makes him an angel!
Good work! You just disproved two of your assumptions by making "prince" and "angel" synonyms. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
composer2005
Fierce Wolf
Joined: 14 Jul 2007
Posts: 561
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 22, 2007 7:57 pm Post subject: J.W's |
|
|
| TBax wrote: | composer, :roll:
| composer wrote: | #1: Let us use TBax' own analogy -
Is my Satan a prince? Yes! (Eph. 2: 2 says so)
Is my Satan an angel? Yes!
Tbax deduces - Does that mean prince means angel? NO!
synonymous adj. (often foll. by with) 1 having the same meaning. 2 suggestive of; associated with (his name is synonymous with terror). (Pocket Oxford Dictionary / POD)
And still TBax denies they are synonymous but it is proven by his own analogy that they are?
|
Against the understanding of the entire world, you have proved that "prince" and "angel" are synonymous!!! :lol: |
So for starters you now agree that I have proved they 'are synonymous' so I have proved yet again your error and back-flip acknowledgement you were wrong by first claiming they were not synonymous.
Yes actually I have proved they are 'synonymous' = synonymous adj. (often foll. by with) 2 suggestive of; associated with (his name is synonymous with terror). (POD)
I haven't like you wrongly claimed they are 'the same' as each other (i.e. TBax' jesus currently equal Michael until the J.W's do another back-flip like before) for indeed the angels and Christ are 'synonymous' because they are both 'messengers / angelos / aggelos' of God's testimony. . . . the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself (John 14:10) KJV
| TBax wrote: | | Well, in that case, since Jesus is a prince that makes him an angel! |
By distorting meanings of course TBax your conclusions are of that same typical fallacious standard.
In fact by you now having back-flipped and agreed they are synonymous you have by that same 'illogic' of yours actually agreed that your Satan the prince and angel must be Jesus because you said that Jesus was an angel and a prince.
The Bible nor I agree with you for I have always maintained that Jesus was never an angel but YOU maintain that he is.
TBax has proven that his Satan is the J.W's jesus?
I undesrand your limitations having a belief system based upon e.g. Michael ISN'T Jesus, Michael IS the Pope, Oops! blunder and 100% back-flip Michael IS Jesus.
| TBax wrote: | | Since Satan is a prince, that makes him an angel! |
I thought you already claimed your naughty Satan was an angel and we are still awaiting your alleged evidence to substantiate that. You therefore need to do that (been waiting for weeks) before you can make any more fallacious conclusions?
| TBax wrote: | | Good work! You just disproved two of your assumptions by making "prince" and "angel" synonyms. :D :lol: :lol: :lol: |
Actually you have again just demonstrated what a silly set of claims you have made with not a shred of legitimate Scriptural support for them.
Looking forward to you actually answering what is asked of you instead of your incesseant 'ducking and diving' as you attempt to avoid them like my Posts here at this Thread -
Sat Dec 22, 2007 1:00 pm Post subject: J.W's
&
Fri Dec 21, 2007 6:50 pm Post subject: J.W's
Cheers! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TBax
King of the Jungle
Joined: 24 Oct 2005
Posts: 1942
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 23, 2007 5:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
composer,
I am not going to answer previous posts as you consistantly display the highest level of incompetence. You think "prince" and "angel" are synonymous, (direct quote) "1 having the same meaning." yet then you claim, after I showed the conclusions your newly invented synonym proves, (direct quote) "like you wrongly claimed they are 'the same' as each other "...Do you understand the direct conflict you have created??????? If they are synonyms they mean the same thing!!!
Dude, seriously, I am not going point for point with you. You directly contradict yourself yet cannot see it.
| composer wrote: | #1: Let us use TBax' own analogy -
Is my Satan a prince? Yes! (Eph. 2: 2 says so)
Is my Satan an angel? Yes!
Tbax deduces - Does that mean prince means angel? NO!
synonymous adj. (often foll. by with) 1 having the same meaning. 2 suggestive of; associated with (his name is synonymous with terror). (Pocket Oxford Dictionary / POD)
And still TBax denies they are synonymous but it is proven by his own analogy that they are?
|
Against the understanding of the entire world, you have proved that "prince" and "angel" are synonymous!!!
Well, in that case, since Jesus is a prince that makes him an angel!
Since Satan is a prince, that makes him an angel!
Good work! You just disproved two of your assumptions by making "prince" and "angel" synonyms. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
composer2005
Fierce Wolf
Joined: 14 Jul 2007
Posts: 561
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 23, 2007 11:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TBax wrote: | composer, :roll:
I am not going to answer previous posts as you consistantly display the highest level of incompetence. You think "prince" and "angel" are synonymous, . . . |
I gave you the definition of synonymous adj. (often foll. by with) 2 suggestive of; associated with (his name is synonymous with terror). (POD)
I even previously highlighted the important bit for you and did so again above.
You said they were not synonymous and then turned around and back-flipped and said i have 'proved' that according to your analogy / formula they were synonymous = suggestive of each other. (See #1 below)
I agreed they are 'suggestive' and acknowledged you recognition of error and accepted again that you now conceded and back-flipped, but that still doesn't make them coequal. i.e. Prince - angel - Michael = Jesus.
Indeed these qualities are 'synonymous / suggestive of' but after actually reading say Heb. 1: 5 & 1:13 KJV Jesus could never be an angel and therefore Michael could never be Jesus.
And just as importantly aprat from the Text referring to a 'Satan = adversary' you have been totally incapable of providing a shred of credible or legititmate Scriptural evdience to support your literal fallen heavenly angel evil spirit being and hence your entire ideology is based upon an unsubstantiated and empty concept.
| Tbax wrote: | #1: Against the understanding of the entire world, you have proved that "prince" and "angel" are synonymous!!! :lol:
Well, in that case, since Jesus is a prince that makes him an angel!
Good work! You just disproved two of your assumptions by making "prince" and "angel" synonyms. :D :lol: :lol: :lol: |
Please see all above!
Result in every case - Jesus CAN NOT BE one of the archangels (PLURAL) Proof - in the voice of a chief-messenger, . . . (1 Thess. 4:16)) YLT or even your old J.W teaching Manual for over 100 years confirms multiple archangels and interprets - Because himself the lord with a command, with a voice of a chief messenger, . . . (1 Thess. 4:16) EMPHATIC Diaglott.
Nor was Jesus any heavenly angel including Michael. (e.g. Heb. 1:5, 13) KJV
Satan the fallen heavenly angel literal spirit being literally exists only in the ungodly and fanciful minds of those who conceived it and perpetuate that Scriptural absurdity.
Cheers! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TBax
King of the Jungle
Joined: 24 Oct 2005
Posts: 1942
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 24, 2007 5:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
composer,
Your further writtings are proving your inablitiy to comprehend a simple concept. That is exactly why you will receive no further explanations of other point you think you made.
You just cannot get it.  The No. 1 definition makes it clear. "1 having the same meaning." Even the No. 2 definition shows it. Prince is not suggestive of angel. Prince does not have the same meaning of angel. Let me give you another example that may help you.
Is Steven is a quadriplegic? Yes!
Is Steven a genius? Yes!
Does that mean quadriplegic means genius? NO!
Those statements do not prove they are synonymous!!! Is quadriplegic suggestive of genius? NO!
Do you get it???
Can you see your error? If not then the following is the case for you.
| composer wrote: | #1: Let us use TBax' own analogy -
Is my Satan a prince? Yes! (Eph. 2: 2 says so)
Is my Satan an angel? Yes!
Tbax deduces - Does that mean prince means angel? NO!
synonymous adj. (often foll. by with) 1 having the same meaning. 2 suggestive of; associated with (his name is synonymous with terror). (Pocket Oxford Dictionary / POD)
And still TBax denies they are synonymous but it is proven by his own analogy that they are?
|
Against the understanding of the entire world, you have proved that "prince" and "angel" are synonymous!!!
Well, in that case, since Jesus is a prince that makes him an angel!
Since Satan is a prince, that makes him an angel!
Good work! You just disproved two of your assumptions by making "prince" and "angel" synonyms. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
composer2005
Fierce Wolf
Joined: 14 Jul 2007
Posts: 561
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 24, 2007 3:44 pm Post subject: J.W's |
|
|
| TBax wrote: | composer,
Your further writtings are proving your inablitiy to comprehend a simple concept. That is exactly why you will receive no further explanations of other point you think you made.
You just cannot get it. :( The No. 1 definition makes it clear. "1 having the same meaning." Even the No. 2 definition shows it. Prince is not suggestive of angel. Prince does not have the same meaning of angel. Let me give you another example that may help you.
Is Steven is a quadriplegic? Yes!
Is Steven a genius? Yes!
Does that mean quadriplegic means genius? NO!
Those statements do not prove they are synonymous!!! Is quadriplegic suggestive of genius? NO!
Do you get it??? :D |
It does not go without noticing your typical ungodly insults to contributors here and the fact you use the specific name 'Steven' as your synonymous response i.e. You insult Steven because you are 'suggesting' he is a quadraplegic.
I got the correct interpretation from square one regarding 'synonymous = suggestive of'. but you still don't even now.
synonymous adj. (often foll. by with) 1 having the same meaning. 2 suggestive of; associated with (his name is synonymous with terror). (Pocket Oxford Dictionary / POD)
I shall not degrade myself to your low level and duplicate your analogy above but I shall temper its insulting synonymous relationships.
You have demonstrated a direct synanynous relationship that say for example a person with a physical disability can also be a genius because a disability and genius are 'associated' to one another.
Here's another example: The Watchtower publishes Jesus ISN'T Michael, then they publish Michael is the Pope and then they Oops! back-flip 100% and say Michael IS Jesus.
Can you now see how the fallacious claims of the J.W's are synonymous with their 100% back-flips?
Even if you can't, virtually every one else who isn't a J.W certainly can!
Recapping TBax' blunders so far.
1. Satan is never a proper name. (It only means 'adversary' and is NEVER a proper name prefix or not)
2. Michael is not Jesus (e.g. Heb. 1: 5, 13) KJV
3. Heavenly angels can never rebel or sin (Rom. 6:23 - Luke 20:36) KJV
4. Evil can never enter God's Heavenly domain (let alone start an alleged war there) (Psalm 5: 4, 5) ASV / KJV
5. There are more than one archangels (1 Thess. 4:16 ' a ' chief messenger) YLT
6. The necessity for TBax devoid of a shred of Scriptural credibility, to invariably resort to habitual personal insult against those like myself and others here at this Forum who have without a shadow of a doubt exposed him and his current fallacious doctrine.
Looking forward to hearing next about your 'drowned spirits'
Cheers! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TBax
King of the Jungle
Joined: 24 Oct 2005
Posts: 1942
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 24, 2007 4:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Nobby,
Hi,
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nobby
Board - Admin
Joined: 16 Sep 2002
Posts: 5058
Location: Missouri
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 24, 2007 8:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well Hello, TBax.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Make a Donation 
Usergroups 
Contact
Register
Submit Articles 
Log in to check your private messages 
