✝️✝️✝️

Stop believing in "Nephilim" fables. The Book of Enoch is not part of the Old Testament for a reason (and that reason is because it is filled with pagan folklore dating to THOUSANDS OF YEARS AFTER Enoch died). The "sons of God" mentioned in Genesis 6 are the same sons of God mentioned in John 1:12 (and yes, the same ones in Job, too, since angels can believe trust in Christ, too, thus also being the sons of God like Christians are). Angels can't have sex, no, not even fallen angels. PROOF FROM THE BIBLE (straight from the mouth of JESUS): "For in the resurrection, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are AS THE ANGELS OF GOD in heaven." - Matthew 22:30

@BibleThumpers

28 күн бұрын

Yes angels of God IN heaven do not marry or give in marriage, but the angels that descended on Mt. Hermon did. We appreciate the comment, but giants came from somewhere. Its not from the "kissing cousins" theory that goofy seminaries try to push. Angels mated with women to create these monsters. You can find allegories of this in every ancient culture. We truly wish it wouldn't have happened, but all evidence points to this being the case. Its not a salvation issue, and if Enoch doesn't set right with you then throw it out. What's most important is our relationship with Messiah. God bless

@anglomik

28 күн бұрын

Doesn't address those who enter the Heavens already married in this life. "Given, taken" would refer to a marriage ceremony taking place in the Heavens. The line "as the Angels of God" doesn't refer to Fallen Angels, who clearly didn't /don't follow the rules.

@elguapo2831

26 күн бұрын

Stand for the Truth. KJV Genesis 6:4 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. After what? Before and after the marriages of believers and nonbelievers. The giants were already there! Who wants to be like the most high? SATAN. Now it's tricked people into calling it a Son of God. Angeles don't marry. Matthew 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven. Angeles are Not the Son's of God. Hebrews 1:5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? In Genesis 6? Nope. In Job 1? Nope. In Job 38? Nope. God has never said it! God punishes man with the flood not Angeles. Also there are still giants after the flood. So that wasn't the purpose of the flood if it didn't wipe the giants out. The Son's of God are the believers of God. FYI Mormons believe Satan is the brother of Jesus too. False doctrine always needs extra explanations. Using a figurative poem to dismiss clear scripture in Hebrews 1 is ridiculous. The angels don't exist in Genesis 1 because it's the beginning. Does the earth have literal corners? No Earth is described as being round in Job. Do stars literally sing? No It's a figurative poem that is foreshadowing the corner stone of Jesus being laid. Jesus said before Abraham I was. Corner stone always refers to Jesus every single time. If you want to base your whole doctrine on a figurative poem, that's on you. Angels are creatures that have no inheritance to become the Son of God.

@endoftheagereality

18 күн бұрын

@gunstar168. WOW !!! I must say you have enthusiastically sparked the reply/response section with an open throttle. Every once and a while during our life span there comes along a topic which stirs the "spirits" of those involved with such. And as always the corresponding action to this is expressed in comments, commentaries, essays, dissertations, and depending upon if the topic is "spirit-realm" related, a treatise will surely be forthcoming. Being able to respond or speak to the topic of discussion mentioned above is to be considered a privilege, and certainly one challenging even to the best scholar's of our time. As a man of 71 yrs of age, in "Christ" 44 yrs, and to that a Biblical expositor for many of these yrs, I chime in from time to time on concept's which catch my eye. Conceptually the ability to speak with credibility concerning the event's attributed to Genesis chp. 6, requires knowledge from "outside the Church box." Much of modern day Christendom remains oblivious to the realities that lay so close to them that they are unable to see or grasp them. Relying on "natural-realm" expository as touching "super-natural" realities, produces the same response that Nicodemus replied to "Jesus" concerning the new birth experience. So coming to an acceptable consensus requires more than "inside the box" normalities. Following Godly pathway's through the "Divine Writing" brings the way walker to the expectant end. So following the principle Paul gave to Timothy in - 2 Timothy 2; 15 - is great counsel. "Out of the box" exegesis and expository concerning the - Genesis chp. 6 - event, cannot even begin unless the understanding of the "origin" for such is established. This requires the understanding of the "tense's of time." Such as in the following; * eternity past * the past * present past * present * * present future * the future * eternity future Therefore the - ( Genesis chp. 6 ) account corresponds to which time period - proper placement is crucial for the establishment of credibility. Answering this validates or disqualifies all theories. Determining this time is found in "Genesis."