I love your teaching!

@gfbc1689

Жыл бұрын

Glad you enjoy it!

@annmcfarlane378

Жыл бұрын

@@gfbc1689 thanks for the sermon Voddie..God bless you

@niram4107

Жыл бұрын

Voddie has made an assumption, an incorrect assumption, to come to the conclusion that 'Sons of God' refer to the descendants of Seth. That incorrect assumption is that Adam and Eve only had one remaining son, Seth, that adhered to God's word. Genesis Chapter 4 does not tell us that Cain was the first born child of Adam and Eve. He may have been or he may have not been. We do know that Abel was born after Cain as Genesis makes this clear. We also know that Cain had other siblings, many brothers and sisters. The reason for the Lord putting a mark on Cain was to deter his many brothers and sisters from exacting vengeance upon Cain for the murder of Abel (Genesis 4:15). Cain's other brothers (including Seth) and his sisters adhered to God's word as Genesis does not say that they did not adhere to God's word. However, by the time of Noah, men and women (all descendants of the many sons and daughters of Adam and Eve) are corrupt and disobeying God, including Seth's descendants. Only Noah, his wife and their 3 sons and the wives of their 3 sons have found favour with God. Voddie is incorrect, 'Sons of God' does not refer to the descendants of Seth. 'Sons of God' refers to the angels that God created, more precisely those angels that, along with Satan, chose to disobey God. We must acknowledge that angels were created with greater capabilities than man. Genesis Chapter 19 shows Lot seeing the Lord's two angels in human form (verses 1-3). Also the men of Sodom saw the two angels in human form - "And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them" (Genesis 19:5). Also verses 8-10 of Chapter 19 describe the two angels as men. Jude and 2nd Peter also support that 'Sons of God' refer to the angels that chose to disobey God. Also Hebrews 13:2 - "Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares".

@MommaBear_316

11 ай бұрын

No assuming! GODS WORD IS, GODS WORD.... PERIOD! With love and respect

“Where Scripture speaks we speak with authority. Where Scripture is silent we close our mouths.” Oh that more preachers & teachers operated under that rule!

@gfbc1689

Жыл бұрын

Soli Deo Gloria

@yvonnedavis7865

9 ай бұрын

Great trying to take it all in Gid help me what a teaching Thanks pastor Voddie.😢

As a Lutheran, I listen to Dr V. Baucham, he reads scripture as is intended; Thank you Voddie, keep uploading your scripture reading.

@gfbc1689

Жыл бұрын

Wonderful!

@mikkellowe1270

Жыл бұрын

Great to have communion with a fellow brother in Christ!

Voddie is the preacher of this era. He is in his prime of knowledge of the gospel and the earthly wisdom and life experience. A gift from God.

@stu3131

Жыл бұрын

He's a good one, there's no doubt.

@gfbc1689

Жыл бұрын

Thanks for listening

@nosafespaces2558

Жыл бұрын

@@gfbc1689 thank you for you Christian content

God put this in front of me today, EXACTLY when I needed to readjust the posture of my heart. The last part of this sermon, was so convicting! Glory to God! Holy Spirit continue to break my heart, for what breaks yours! In Jesus name!

@gfbc1689

Жыл бұрын

Praise God for His word

"Apologetics is one beggar telling the other beggar where he finds bread" thank you Voddie man I like the way you present the Gospel keep bringing that fire brother👍 all the way from New Zealand👍

@gfbc1689

Жыл бұрын

Well said! Much appreciated!

@Travis_Manu_Blessed_by_GOD

Жыл бұрын

Mua Mua le Atua, Malo Soe Fua New Zealand from Seattle, WA Uso! Amen.

WOW! Voddie really does his homework! Very sensitive also in his heart toward the Lord.

@gfbc1689

Жыл бұрын

Amen Lights!

people are hungry!!!!!!!!!!! They want to move from 'milk' to the 'meat' of the word and it's getting harder to find Bible teachers who go a little deeper and explain what things mean. And are accurate in their interpretation. Praise God for raising up men like Voddie.

@gfbc1689

Жыл бұрын

Praise God

@golfcat33

11 ай бұрын

Man that’s the truth!

@rogers3142

11 ай бұрын

Exactly, staying on milk and honey will get you cavities and leave you malnourished.

Pastor Voddie is an Awesome man of God! Love his sermons and teachings 🙏😇🙏

@gfbc1689

Жыл бұрын

Soli Deo Gloria

Solid message 👌🏾

@gfbc1689

Жыл бұрын

Thanks for Listening

Through God all things are possible, stay the course🙏🏼🙏🏼🌹💜

@gfbc1689

Жыл бұрын

Thanks for Listening

Never knew what Exodus was about until now Amen !!!Thank you God

@gfbc1689

Жыл бұрын

Praise God for His word

great knowledge

@gfbc1689

Жыл бұрын

Keep watching

I am so grateful to God for finding you!!! Love ,love, love your teaching!

@gfbc1689

Жыл бұрын

To God be the Glory

Amen what a powerfull teaching this is an endtime message the world is coming to an end get up and get ready

Wow! Paster Voddie you are really a great teacher of the bible.

@gfbc1689

Жыл бұрын

Thanks for listening

We love to talk about nephlim and the sorts but not what this man touched about. Implementing our own ideas. 😮 thanks for the clarity on context of scripture. I appreciate his wisdom according to Bible

@gfbc1689

Жыл бұрын

Our pleasure!

Wow this has given me a different perception of man and so many other aspects, like idolatry. Thank you Mr. Voddie

@gfbc1689

Жыл бұрын

That is great to hear

Brother Baucham, I thank God for men like you and John Barnett, and many others who teach the whole council of God. I have had the need to know the complete depravity of my existence. To finally realize that a Thrice Holy God, watching over His Word to perform it, as well as watching over me as I make my journey home.

@gfbc1689

Жыл бұрын

Thanks for listening

I am a new to your teaching, thank you

@gfbc1689

Жыл бұрын

You are very welcome! Thanks for listening!

Great sermon 👏 i do believe sons of god are the seed of seth as angels cant procreate

@gfbc1689

10 ай бұрын

Thanks for sharing

@jmckenzie3443

16 күн бұрын

Who said Angels can't procreate? Not God . Christ tod us that they do not marry. Angels are all male and not androgynous as taught by Catholics. Angels are spirits. Mary was impregnated by the Holy Spirit and that speaks volumes.

Excellent!😍

@gfbc1689

Жыл бұрын

Thank you! 😃

@42:30 hit hard!!! He's absolutely right though...and it's so sad,the fall in the garden truly cursed mankind. God bless you and your loved ones 👑✝️❤😊

@gfbc1689

Жыл бұрын

Praise God for His word

EVERY WORD OF GOD IS TRUTH HE IS HOLY HOLY HOLY AMEN

Thank you, Lord for your love and forgiveness. Help me love and know You better. Please, Lord, Jesus Work in my heart

@gfbc1689

Жыл бұрын

Amen. Thanks for listening

Jude 6-7 and 2 Peter 2:4 seems to give explanation to what happened to those angels who left there place

That was my impression when we visited the Ark Encounter in North Central (Bluegrass) Kentucky.

Genesis 3 : God placed a seraphim with a flaming sword at the entrance of the garden of Eden . Your claim of no mention of angels prior to Genesis 6 is incorrect.

"Viper in a diaper". Hilarious. Great sermon by Dr. Baucham.

Thank GOD someone cleared this up!! Tired of all the books about the nephilim. The out of control expounding on something that is not THAT hard to explain. Tired of these teachers who are desperate to make new dogmas against clear Scripture. Voddie is a superior teacher and no one can compete.

@gfbc1689

Жыл бұрын

Thanks for listening

@veler6049

Жыл бұрын

I think Voddie is wrong on this one.

I would love to hear his opinion on Micheal S Heisers unseen realm studies.

Where is the sermon on Genesis 5 please😭, the one before this in this playlist is rather Genesis 2

It’s an interesting take by Voddie. Though I think the counter argument is equally credible. Jesus said the angels in HEAVEN do not marry. (Mark 12:25) If these are fallen angels then they broke the rules. We know angels can take human flesh, it happens in many instances in the Bible. Personally I think Jude makes the argument that fallen angels intermarried with human females and created the Nephilim. Really good book on this topic called “The Unseen Realm” by Michael Heiser. “Though you already know all this, I want to remind you that the Lord at one time delivered his people out of Egypt, but later destroyed those who did not believe. And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their proper dwelling-these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day. In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.” Jude 5-7 For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, putting them in chains of darkness to be held for judgment - 2 Peter 2:4

@jl7888

Жыл бұрын

Psalm 82 also references these “sons of God.” As per Heiser, he claims they were high ranking beings similar to Lucipher. “The ‘gods’ know nothing, they understand nothing. They walk about in darkness; all the foundations of the earth are shaken. “I said, ‘You are “gods”; you are all sons of the Most High.’ But you will die like mere mortals; you will fall like every other ruler.” At the end of the day it’s not imperative to salvation. Definitely interesting to debate though.

@HighSummonerBWM

Жыл бұрын

No. That is still a weak counter argument. Whether they were fallen or not, the fact God himself made angels to not reproduce and they are spiritual beings like him, they won't be able to have offspring like a human.

@TheLampsLight1

Жыл бұрын

@@HighSummonerBWM God Almighty came in the flesh. Do you believe that you cannot have a non-reproductive spiritual body when you die? How then was it a possibility that those men were going to take the two angels out of Lots house and know them? It is clear the main problem is of a sexual nature. How was it possible for satan (a high ranking angel, the Cherubim that covereth=guards over) to fall if he was made perfect?

@HighSummonerBWM

Жыл бұрын

@@TheLampsLight1 You're arguing with Jesus. Not me. Matthew 22:29-32. He states specifically there is no marriage in heaven and will be like angels. Also, using Sodom and Gomorrah to make it as though angels can reproduce doesn't mean anything. The men wanted to have sex with the angels. A woman can be infertile or have their tubes tied but it doesn't mean it will stop them from having sex, so why desiring for angels to reproduce when Jesus stated angels are unable through the world example of marriage?

@HighSummonerBWM

Жыл бұрын

@@TheLampsLight1 Also, Satan was made in perfection; didn't stop him from wanting to be above God with his mindset. His sin kicked him out (Not sure what this has to do angels reproducing).

I never knew there was a thing as "calvinist" till one day I was watching a short of Voddie and someone commented/accused him of being a calvinist, many researches later and many months later, here I am back on this playlist and I can hear the concept from this sermon, of "others are damned" because they are not elected. is this true? I'm still super confused with all this, I miss my days of ignorance, now I'm just a very confused christian, all these many sects and creeds and ideas. So, if my mom was not elected, that's it for her? gone? forever?

Go to creation museum and visit the Ark exhibit, breathtaking

@gfbc1689

Жыл бұрын

True

Great sermon by Voddie. But I tend to diffe that the 120 years was not the actual life span of man, but the period that they would have to believe Noah's message. Noah did live more than 120 years after the flood.

@gfbc1689

Жыл бұрын

thanks for listening

@charliehustlbeats7361

10 ай бұрын

Yes I agree

I believe that Moses saw what he wrote in the early chapters of Genesis played out like a movie up to where Abram enters the scene. I think he was describing what he saw and sometimes didn't have a context so he did the best he could to describe it. I think John does some of the same thing in his vision in Revelation.

@gfbc1689

Жыл бұрын

Thanks for listening

@daekwonrose3160

Жыл бұрын

Moses wasn’t even alive at the time of the Ark nor was he present during Sodom

@detrechrats

Жыл бұрын

@@daekwonrose3160 You are right, Moses was not alive during the events in Genesis but he is credited with writing it so he must have been shown it by God to know what to write.

Thank you. Would luv to know his thoughts on the book of Enoch and many other books said to have been removed by the Catholic Church

@gfbc1689

Жыл бұрын

We don't believe that's historically true.

@dnisey64

Жыл бұрын

@@gfbc1689 what about the reference to the book of Jasher in the Bible

@gfbc1689

Жыл бұрын

@@dnisey64 the Bible makes reference to non-biblical texts. Paul quotes from Greek poets on Mars Hill. That doesn't make those poems Biblical canon.

@dnisey64

Жыл бұрын

@@gfbc1689 Maybe or maybe not but, there was a reason The Most High allowed it to carry weight. Thank you for the responses.

PROVERBS 6:12-16

@gfbc1689

Жыл бұрын

Thanks for listening

John Macarthur did a sermon where he said it was possible that that Fallen Angels possessed men and then married the women.

@gfbc1689

Жыл бұрын

Thanks for listening

Thought I might point this out. Angels are mentioned in the first part of Genesis. Cherubim gaurding the tree of life ring a bell?

@gfbc1689

Жыл бұрын

Thanks for listening

I have a question on the conjecture that Adam was possibly foot 7 inches, 290 pounds. If so, then there was no reason for the spies going into Canaan to fear the giants if they were common. Is there scripture defining the size and height of men, or only giants? Og, for example, had a 13' x 6' bed. Thank you!

@gfbc1689

Жыл бұрын

Thanks for listening

@ME-ks2vn

Жыл бұрын

@@gfbc1689 thank you for your message and teaching, Pastor Baucham!

John 11:35 - Jesus wept.

@gfbc1689

Жыл бұрын

Thanks for listening

I believe it's the first, sons of God are from Seth's line and the daughters were from the line of Cain. It makes sense to me.

What I don't like about a non super natural explanation of this passage, is I've not heard any good explanation for the reason to differentiate between the sons of God and the daughters of man. I understand Mr Baucham's reasoning about the seed, but by the same argument he made of "no where in 6 chapters are angels mentioned" neither does it state that Seth's line was referred to as "sons of God". And while the mentioning of sons of God may be limited in the old testament, it is present and is clearly in reference to Angel's. No where does it explicitly state it also references the holy line of Seth. And while some books may be more allegorical or poetic, I feel like the terminology wouldn't necessarily change. Certainly not for the sake of changing a full context of such an important phrase. There are plenty of other arguments to make against the line of Seth, but I'll leave it at that.

I’m the biggest MGK fan but I think I just now changed my position here

Regarding your objection to the Nephilim being angels, you ignore Genesis 6: 1-2. It begs the question "Why would and how could, the fallen angels take as wives the daughters of men?" as they did.

@gfbc1689

Жыл бұрын

Thanks for listening

How do we know if Abel had children before Cain killed him? Were the Nephilims perhaps his children?

@gfbc1689

Жыл бұрын

Thanks for listening

I disagree about the Nephilim. I think they were fallen angels, and there are responses to each of your objections. Love you, Brother Voddie.

In Numbers, Nephilim were differentiated from the others who were also huge. Numbers says ALL THE PEOPLE WERE GIANTS A N D THE NEPHILIM WERE ALSO THERE.

What occurred in this presentation? Why/how would Rev Baucham switch from delving into the sons of men and angels, to, reverting back to man's sinful ways? Did you all splice this video? J W

@astelter8584

Жыл бұрын

Wondering this also.

@gfbc1689

Жыл бұрын

I'll look into it. -pastor wright

@futuresite11

Жыл бұрын

@@gfbc1689 Thank you. I rely on your messages very much. J W

Why did God change his mind? My answer is I don't know."""In Roman it says who can know the mind of God,

I enjoy Voddie Baucham and his teachings, and i also dis agree with his "line of Seth" position. Still my brother.

@gfbc1689

Жыл бұрын

Thanks for listening

@Sons_of_Thunder.

Жыл бұрын

I'll help you out using Deut. 32. The text is correct as sons of God in Deuteronomy 32:8. The Hebrew would be >>>>(בני האלהים‎, bənê hāʼĕlōhîm

Another possibility regarding the “ Sons of God “ in Genesis 6 is that the Sons of God were actually Sons born to Adam and Eve before the fall and in obedience to YHVH command to be fruitful and multiply and these Sons were classed as Sons of God before the fall and before the corruption of man’s image by Adam and Eve Genesis 5:3 he became the father of a son in his own image !! Just a thought 🙏

@gfbc1689

Жыл бұрын

Thanks for listening

@niram4107

Жыл бұрын

Yes, that it is a possibility. But an incorrect possibility as it would require God to go against Himself and punish any righteous children born to Adam and Eve before the fall of Adam and Eve by banishing those righteous children with Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve did not have children prior to being banished from Eden.

Sons of god shows up in deut 32 also. This has been verified and corrected from the dead sea scrolls. What we have been taught about the old testimant is lacking much study

This is the first time I disagree with Voddie. I genuinely believe that Gen 6 is referring to fallen angels

@Sons_of_Thunder.

Жыл бұрын

I'll help you out using Deut. 32. The text is correct as sons of God in Deuteronomy 32:8. The Hebrew would be >>>>(בני האלהים‎, bənê hāʼĕlōhîm

They have a replica of the ark! It’s by the creation science museum! You have to go see it!

@gfbc1689

11 ай бұрын

Thanks for listening

@gfbc1689

11 ай бұрын

Thanks for listening

John 1:12 Sons of God = "born-again" believers

@gfbc1689

Жыл бұрын

Thanks for listening

Ken Ham with Answers in Genesis made a replica….we can most definitely have more than an idea of the size. Just driving by this replica can give you more than an idea. Certainly you are familiar with this replica made to size of the Ark?!

@gfbc1689

Жыл бұрын

Thanks for listening

I disagree. Cain was not necessarily ungodly. I believe we don't really know. But my thinking is it's fallen angels.

Voodie is wrong on this one pertaining to Angels not being mentioned in Genesis. Was there not an Angel with a flaming sword placed to prevent Adam and Eve from returning to Eden? Also angels are spiritual and heavenly beings as mentioned by Christ. Christ says that angels are not allowed to marry. Ciuld this be because all angels are MALE and not one Female? Wouldn't it make sense that the Sons of God not be given in marriage for the very reason that they are all male? Vodie is also incorrect when he says Angels can't procreate with humans because they are of different species. How was Mary impregnated? The Holy Spirit. And yes He is God but God is a Spirit and so are the angels or Sons of God. Lastly, Baucham is wrong when he suggests that God didn't punish the angels as Jude is clear that they are reserved in chains beneath the river Euphrates because they left their first estate. It happened in the days of Noah and After as Moses mentions in Genesis. The Sons of God spoken of in Genesis were angels just like the God mentioned in the book of Job is the same God mentioned in Genesis.

Also, Jesus said Angel's in heaven don't marry. Fallen angels wouldn't qualify as being in heaven. Also, the fact that both us an angels are made in God's image might also point to the fact that physiologically, procreation might be possible. Still don't know if this is the right answer, but I don't think this sermon is a good enough argument from dissuading me of a supernatural option

I get sick of men's thoughts and OPINIONS on what the "sons of God" mean in the book of Genesis. God apparently didn't want us to think about too much, because He must have known false doctrine would ensue (as we can see today). Most of the false doctrine that comes from commentator's and preachers is due to the fact that they get a lot of what is taught about the Nephilim from extrabiblical, like the apocrypha. God is CLEAR and PRECISE about who Jesus Christ our Savior is, about sin, about salvation, about His holiness, righteousness, mercy and love (just to name a few of His attributes). About how we aught to love our neighbor as ourselves and how we aught to mediate on His Holy word DAY and NIGHT to be students of His Word to shew ourselves approved and to be doers of His Word. About living righteous and holy. God is clear about preaching the gospel to a lost and dying world. Thank you for your message, brother Baucham 🙂

@gfbc1689

Жыл бұрын

Praise God for His word

@monacole1264

7 ай бұрын

Amen!!!!

Voddie criticizes others for eisegesis, only to then eisegete the phrase "His says shall be 120 years" not long after. Where do you get the idea that this is referring to the lifespan of a person? That is eisegesis. There's plenty of contextual basis to say that this is referring to the length of time before the flood. So where is he getting that from? I nornally enjoy listening to Voddie, but I have to be intellectually honest and not deny when he is in error. He is guilty of doing the very thing he accuses others of doing, in the same exact video he makes the accusation. While there definitely are plenty of things in scripture that are very clear, and doctrine is definitely important, we cannot deny that some things are not clear and require some level of speculation in order to explain. We need to allow room for this speculation without getting hostile towards each other.

Yet another possibility as to the identity of "the sons of GOD" is the "male(s) and female(s)" that "GOD created" in Genesis 1:26, which was "the sixth day (vs.29)"; "the sons of GOD" throughout Scripture have 1 thing in common: Directly related to GOD, by Creation, Birth, and/or Rebirth! It was the Adam that "THE LORD GOD formed (after 'GOD' had 'rested on the seventh day')" and made to be the federal head ("the first man Adam (1Cor15:45)") of all mankind, in Genesis 2, it is that Adam that allowed sin into the world; the same sin that contaminated all of mankind. Ergo, it is "the sons of GOD" who at 700, 800, and even 900 years old who are marrying the 20, 30, 40-year-old "daughters of men", causing all kinds of generational problems and/or concerns.

@gfbc1689

Жыл бұрын

Thanks for listening.

@nehemiahthomas3395

Жыл бұрын

@@gfbc1689 You're very welcome.

Do a word study "Sons of God" in Gen 6. So, there are different views, but for sure we will find out which one is truth. Will this keep me out of heaven? No. But, read Acts 17:11....don't take man's word. Read some of Dr. Chuck Missler's teaching.

@gfbc1689

Жыл бұрын

Thanks for listening

The idea that one man put two of every animal on a boat is such a sticking point for me. As an agnostic who is desperately searching for answers, this just seems to be false. As if written at a time when the sheer breadth of the animal kingdom was not known. Hundreds of thousands of animals just in the insect class alone. To think that every animal on earth came off that boat and somehow made their way to their respective climates and habitats, possible thousands of miles away, with absolutely no food. It just doesn’t sit right. What would the lions eat? They can’t eat the other animals because there’s only two of them. Eating just one would make that animal extinct. There is of course the other issue of reproduction. It can’t be accomplished in this scenario without incest. For the animals and the humans. This is why I have such a hard time grasping it as truth. However bad I might want to.

@ExaltedTilemaker

Ай бұрын

Oh hey. I'm glad I was looking at the comments. 4 months is a while, but I do have answers for what you're asking. First off, you use the term “insect class”. The modern term of animal classification did not exist at the time Genesis was written, so when the Bible says two of every kind of animal was on earth, it isn't referring to any sort of classification that we have today. It definitely wasn't two of every “species” of animal. It is more likely that the “family” classification would be a lot closer to what was intended. We don't know the exact parameters of what “kind” meant, but if we go by the family classification as a guideline, subtract the fish and aquatic creatures (none of them were on the ark for obvious reasons). The larger animals were quite young. Nevertheless, even if we presume that “kind” is synonymous with “species,” there are not very many species of mammals, birds, amphibians and reptiles. The leading systematic biologist, Ernst Mayr, gives the number as 17,600. Allowing for two of each species on the ark, plus seven of the few so-called “clean” kinds of animals, plus a reasonable increment for known extinct species, it is obvious that not more than, say, 50,000 animals were on the ark. Considering that only 15% of animals on that situation would be larger than a sheep, and the ark would have the carrying capacity of 500 railroad stock cars, it's a mathematical fact that there would be more than enough room in the ark when you take into account its dimensions. Now, about what the animals ate. It is a legitimately good question. However, I do need to clear up an inaccurate assumption within it. Contrary to popular opinion, the Bible makes it clear that there was actually more than one pair of many of the “kinds” of animals on board the Ark. “Take with you seven pairs of all clean animals, the male and his mate, and a pair of the animals that are not clean, the male and his mate, and seven pairs of the birds of the heavens also, male and female, to keep their offspring alive on the face of all the earth. (Genesis 7:2-3) There were seven pairs of all of the “clean” animals. “Clean” and “Unclean” refers to how the people of Israel (Moses’ original audience) were later taught by God to determine which animals were good for food and for sacrifice. (For more information on which animals were clean or unclean see Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14) This category of animals would have included all livestock and many of the non-predatory mammals. Because the original, perfect world (before it fell into sin like it is today) had no death, animals used to be vegetarians. There most likely would not have been enough loss of genetic material via mutation by this time (from Creation to the Flood) to have made vegetarianism physically impractical or impossible. While some animals began to develop carnivorous tendencies at some point after the fall of man, it would be reasonable that they were still mostly vegetarian at this time. According to the Biblical narrative, they had been fed from the stored food on board the Ark for over a year and so would not have immediately needed prey to survive. Noah, his family, and the animals remained in the Ark for about 7 ½ months as the land dried (and as the plants grew) until God instructed him to leave the Ark. There was an Olive that had sprouted into leaf before they left the ark (8:11) and certainly the grasses grow even more rapidly having quite a head start in that warm sun and soft soil. It should also be noted that the soil would have had many water-borne nutrients deposited in it as a result of the flood. Many today can testify to how tall the grass in a backyard can grow after 7 ½ months of not being mowed, even despite the bad soil. As far as the animal population goes, I would assume that because of the length of time on the ark, and the animals being coupled in breeding pairs, it is likely that many either gave birth on the Ark or at least were pregnant upon leaving the zoological Love Boat! The command of God upon Noah’s family and by extension all of the animals was to, “be fruitful and multiply, teem on the earth and multiply in it.” Additionally, the Bible does not say that all the fish and aquatic life perished in the flood, though much sea life would have been trapped in sediment (in fact this is the source of our fossil fuels today). Also as the waters receded and the land rose there would have been many fish, etc. trapped in lakes and shallow pools. So it is likely that there would have been easy access to aquatic species as a source of animal protein for land based predators, and aquatic plants for the herbivores as well. In addition, it is also possible that there would have been a lot of flood-kill carrion deposits that were not covered by sediments that may have temporarily supported post-flood carnivores. Potentially massive amounts of decaying meat from all of the people/animals who died in the flood should have been around as well. Up until this time it was not lawful for man to eat animals, but given the moral conditions before the flood, we can be fairly sure that most did it anyway. But after the flood, it is stated that God put the fear of man in animals. This fear would make it harder for mankind to find and kill them. It is also reasonable to assume that the resources stored in the Ark had not been exhausted. Noah had no idea how long he was going to be on the Ark and certainly would have not only collected food for his family and the animals for as long as possible, but also to be able to plant crops following the flood. I hope these possible (but not exhaustive) solutions I have provided serve, if not individually, then collectively to answer your question. Now, as for the subject of reproduction. That one is a lot simpler to answer. The word “incest” is a modern word without a real equivalent back then. Technically, since all human beings are descendants of Adam and Eve, and also descendants of Noah’s three sons, that means that many would have married their siblings even. However, this actually wasn't inherently wrong at that time. What we would call “incest” today was only declared by God to be forbidden when the law was given to Moses later in the book of Leviticus. There wasn't anything wrong with marriage and reproduction with close families back then because sin had had less time to spread and thoroughly corrupt mankind. Death and illness is because of sin. When people reproduce, they reproduce according to their kinds, so when close relatives reproduce today, they share the same faults, the same corrupted genes, and that results in the health problems we see with inbreeding today, whereas with reproduction of much more distantly related people, they don't have the same corruptions, and so they balance each other out, hence why wider genepools result in better health. Before sin had taken time to corrupt humanity as badly as it had, though, there weren't any such ill effects. At the point where sin had started to become capable of causing these problems, the law against reproduction with immediate family was given in Leviticus 18. Questions are good, and feel free to ask what you like, but ultimately, if you believe the first verse of the Bible “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth”, then you will have zero issue believing the rest of the Bible. Any God powerful enough to create the heavens and the earth is powerful enough to see to it that everything else in the Bible happened the way it was written, no matter how little sense it may make when you look at it with a secular lens. In fact, it's illogical to say that anything in the Bible would be impossible if the first verse is true. If God has the power to do all of that, why would God's power stop at such an arbitrary point as to not be able to have animals eat each other to extinction? When you really pick apart the train of thought, what I think you will find if you're being honest with yourself is that this doubt in God's word does not have anything to do with not being able to believe two of every animal was gathered on an ark together. It's that you don't want to accept that first verse of the Bible. If you believed that, the belief of the rest of the Bible would follow naturally. You don't really need to look for answers. God isn't some sort of puzzle we need to figure out. The account God gives us in the Bible is, by its very design, sufficient enough to provide enough evidence that the things within it are true. The Bible is a collection of historic documents, many penned by people that didn't know each other and could not have see each other's inkwork, which prevents the idea that they copied each other or collaborated. The Bible makes the case that the Spirit of God moved these people to write just as God wanted them to, so essentially people were the penmen of the Bible, but God is the writer. Therefore the Bible claims to be the direct word of God. It is full of accounts that no man would have written, because men don't describe in great detail their faults, failings, and shortcomings. Example, where Simeon and Levi, the sons of Jacob (the man who Jews descended from), murdered an entire city for revenge. This has been part of Israel's history for years, and yet no person recording the history of their own nation would have written this. It would make them look terrible. Any look at a history book will tell you that human beings don't write that way on their own. People are selective in what they report in a way that removes bits of information inexpedient to the writer. Another example, the book of Exodus was penned by Moses, but if Moses wrote it on his own, without the Holy Spirit moving him, we can be fairly certain he would conveniently leave out the part where he murdered an Egyptian.

@ExaltedTilemaker

Ай бұрын

Leaving the Old Testament aside for a bit, in terms of historical evidence, there are only about 50 passages in the New Testament that are in any question of their accuracy, and not even one of them deals with any Christian doctrine of any kind, including all the miracles, signs, and wonders that Jesus did, and His crucifixion and resurrection. If 50 passages sound like a lot to you, then to put it another way, less than 0.1% of the New Testament is in question at all, even from a secular historical perspective. There are many more such examples that I can get into, but this is long enough as is. I would highly recommend looking into other such examples yourself. But above all, I would recommend listening to the gospel. This is what you need to know in order to be saved. kzread.info/dash/bejne/gmiHucuTf5yXmLg.htmlsi=e8RcCxEZngYXn0fy If you still have doubts, pray that God would open your eyes and reveal the truth to you. You don't need to necessarily have all the answers now, but you can ask God for faith in Him and what He has said in His word. I will pray for you in the meantime. God bless.

@wiskyjack_7143

Ай бұрын

@@ExaltedTilemaker outstanding reply. In the 4 months I’ve found many similar explanations that seem quite reasonable. Although I still struggle with ideas such as all the land animals in places like the America’s. How could the animals make their way to such a distant continent with nothing more than the historical “frozen bridge”? Not to mention Australia. They would have had to literally swim across the ocean. The more I study the Bible, the more I learn of its undeniable historical accuracy. Especially in the field of archeology. Just the few lingering questions turn out to be quite difficult from a literal perspective. Thank you for the reply!

Have to disagree. NEVER in scripture does it say that being “unequally yoked” will result in a child that it “an abomination”. If that were the case “reproduce with their kind” would have been used in conjunction with being unequally yoked. Job came BEFORE Noah. So hence, Sons of God DOES show up before the mention of the cause for the flood, not after. Still believe it was angels. Which fits Romans and 2 Timothy where it states “they will be inventors of evil”. If men can create new evils then why can’t the fallen angels? Hence the end times says it will be as in the days of Noah. What are we seeing “aliens” and AI trying to combine humans with them. Transhumanism. That’s why it’s an abomination. Because it was NOT of the same kind. But that’s just my two cents.

@gfbc1689

Жыл бұрын

Thanks for listening

@Sons_of_Thunder.

Жыл бұрын

I'll help you out using Deut. 32. Job was a Patriarch (son of God) The text is correct as sons of God in Deuteronomy 32:8. The Hebrew would be >>>>(בני האלהים‎, bənê hāʼĕlōhîm

I think you missed the mark first of all angels, who are classified as demons have entered into man’s body a lot of times, that man’s request to become stronger and mightier read about Jesus in demons. Second of all as punishment, the most vile of the demons are commended to the pit chained up. And what did the demons asked Jesus not to do but they throw them into the pigs not into the pit that would be enough warning I think there any demon not to go on.

@gfbc1689

Жыл бұрын

Thanks for listening

Then how did the Nephillim survive to be among the pagan nations in the book of Numbers?

Scripture is very clear that the angels left their first estate. God talks about the seed of Satan...the sons of God are the Watchers, some of whom rebelled and took wives from the daughters if men. If ut was men takibg wives thete would be no need to refer to the women as daughters of 'men'...Peter and Jude explain this...

Read Enoch!!! These are Angles

@gfbc1689

Жыл бұрын

Enoch isn't inspired scripture. It was written after Malachi and before the incarnation of Christ. There is no reason why we would use that text to interpret Genesis 6, other than to recognize that there are people who held the belief at that time period that these were angels. You can hold such a belief and still be orthodox, but Enoch isn't the key to interpreting Genesis 6. When we have a passage of scripture that isn't as clear as others, we use the parts of scripture that are more clear to us in our interpretation. What we don't do is go and find an uninspired text written over 1,000 years after the text we are trying to interpret to guide us in our interpretation. Here is a great sermon that talks out interpreting difficult passages of scripture: kzread.info/dash/bejne/o3uOlpikgceWZdY.html

@TheLampsLight1

Жыл бұрын

They left their first estate (that removed their heavenly bodies) just like when we die we get a heavenly body. Yeshua was telling the apostles that when you die there is no continued marriage in heaven. Take the two angels appearing in the flesh form before Lot. Enmity was place between satan's SEED and the woman's SEED. And, these fallen angels were cast out of heaven and chained in the bottomless pit for punishment. In the end there will be no more seed, sun, moon, sea, or night. I love you Dr. Voddie Baucham but I believe your hermeneutics is incorrect. Scripture interprets itself. You don't need to be a doctorate degree to understand it. It says what it means.

@theresaatwater2884

Жыл бұрын

@@gfbc1689 I’m sorry that you misunderstand. Please watch Michael Heiser, I would hope this opens the understanding. Enoch was long before Malachi. Enoch was shown everything and given understanding the Bible speaks of these books Enoch , Jasher and Jubilee.

Spot on Voddie. Calvin said about the same concerning the sons of God and the daughters of men in his commentary concerning these verses: "That ancient figment, concerning the intercourse of angels with women, is abundantly refuted by its own absurdity; and it is surprising that learned men should formerly have been fascinated by ravings so gross and prodigious. The opinion also of the Chaldean paraphrase is frigid; namely, that promiscuous marriages between the sons of nobles, and the daughters of plebeians, is condemned. Moses, then, does not distinguish the sons of God from the daughters of men, because they were of dissimilar nature, or of different origin; but because they were the sons of God by adoption, whom he had set apart for himself; while the rest remained in their original condition. Should any one object, that they who had shamefully departed from the faith, and the obedience which God required, were unworthy to be accounted the sons of God; the answer is easy, that the honor is not ascribed to them, but to the grace of God, which had hitherto been conspicuous in their families. For when Scripture speaks of the sons of God, sometimes it has respect to eternal election, which extends only to the lawful heirs; sometimes to external vocations according to which many wolves are within the fold; and thought in fact, they are strangers, yet they obtain the name of sons, until the Lord shall disown them. Yea, even by giving them a title so honorable, Moses reproves their ingratitude, because, leaving their heavenly Father, they prostituted themselves as deserters." I appreciate your understanding and teaching! May God bless us with more of your teaching.

Seems to me that we are back in Noah's time. All i see is corruption.

@gfbc1689

Жыл бұрын

Semper Reformanda

Someone really mutilated this video. Rev Baucham is jumping all over the place in the last 25- 30 minutes of this. Please fix this video. J W

@gfbc1689

Жыл бұрын

Thanks for listening

TOO MANY ADDS, TWICE THE VOLUME OF THE MESSAGE MAKES THIS A MOST UNCOMFORTABLE LISTEH. I WONT BE SUBSCRIDING TO THIS CHANNEL.

@gfbc1689

Жыл бұрын

Thanks for listening

Voddie doesn't use Deut. 32 for sons of God The text is correct as sons of God in Deuteronomy 32:8. The Hebrew would be >>>>(בני האלהים‎, bənê hāʼĕlōhîm