Do Jews and Christians worship the sa...
Sir Doctor

San Jose, CA

#205 Feb 17, 2013
Sheilaa wrote:
<quoted text>
Who is this post being addressed to?
Her moms. She lost her mom eternally forever. Don't laugh.
Flygerian

Houston, TX

#206 Feb 17, 2013
Sheilaa wrote:
<quoted text>
2 is referring to the line of Seth
3 yes God is referring to men
4 Mighty men does not indicate "giants"
5. Wickedness was great and God was talking about men not angels
I don't find it clear that they were angels
How do you explain a genetic aberration today, it is not due to angels
Satan if you believe in him was nothing more than an adversary. He was not one of the sons of God
The angels were with God when the foundations of the earth were laid. The sons of God is not restricted just to the angels as can be shown in the bible
The righteous line of Seth intermarried with the unrighteous line of Cain resulting in the corruption of society. This applies genetically, physically and spiritually.
In Hosea 1:10 the sons of God were not angels that were being referred to
2. Wheres the proof?
3. I understand he was talking about men when it said daughters of men. Wheres the proof it was talking about men when it said sons of God?
4. It clearly says Giants in the verse before it says mighty men. What would be the point of mentioning this?

Why would the "righteous line of Seth" (which is never mentioned in the bible to my knowledge) marrying the "corrupt line of Cain" mess things up Genetically? Especially since both came from the same parents?

The context in Hosea tells you it is talking about people and not angels. Can you tell me what about the context in Genesis 6 tells you that the sons of God is men?

Sheilaa

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#207 Feb 17, 2013
Flygerian wrote:
<quoted text>
2. Wheres the proof?
3. I understand he was talking about men when it said daughters of men. Wheres the proof it was talking about men when it said sons of God?
4. It clearly says Giants in the verse before it says mighty men. What would be the point of mentioning this?
Why would the "righteous line of Seth" (which is never mentioned in the bible to my knowledge) marrying the "corrupt line of Cain" mess things up Genetically? Especially since both came from the same parents?
The context in Hosea tells you it is talking about people and not angels. Can you tell me what about the context in Genesis 6 tells you that the sons of God is men?
There have been "giants" in every age. They had nothing to do with angels. I have provided information to support this.

The reason I mentioned Hosea was to prove how it is easy to misrepresent what the sons of God means.

The context in Genesis 6 does not support the claim that it is angels being talked about. Jesus clearly taught that angels do not marry or are given in marriage. Why would spiritual beings co habit with a different species namely humans when it was not condoned by God. He created the angels as eternal beings who did not sin and who obeyed him

In relation to the sons of men marrying the daughters of men it is to do with a genetic issue nothing more.
Flygerian

Houston, TX

#208 Feb 17, 2013
Sheilaa wrote:
<quoted text>
There have been "giants" in every age. They had nothing to do with angels. I have provided information to support this.
The reason I mentioned Hosea was to prove how it is easy to misrepresent what the sons of God means.
The context in Genesis 6 does not support the claim that it is angels being talked about. Jesus clearly taught that angels do not marry or are given in marriage. Why would spiritual beings co habit with a different species namely humans when it was not condoned by God. He created the angels as eternal beings who did not sin and who obeyed him
In relation to the sons of men marrying the daughters of men it is to do with a genetic issue nothing more.
Revelation does say that the devil took a third of the angels right?

Yes the context of Genesis 6 shows that it is angels. Because humans marrying humans does not cause genetic problems in the sense of nephilim since giants is a poor translation. Can you explain to me what scritpure points out that it is speaking of sons of seth and the sons of cain?

Sheilaa

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#209 Feb 17, 2013
Flygerian wrote:
<quoted text>
Revelation does say that the devil took a third of the angels right?
Yes the context of Genesis 6 shows that it is angels. Because humans marrying humans does not cause genetic problems in the sense of nephilim since giants is a poor translation. Can you explain to me what scritpure points out that it is speaking of sons of seth and the sons of cain?
As a nurse I disagree with you. Humans marrying other humans can cause genetic problems.

Acromegaly is a disease in which an abnormality in the pituitary gland leads to an oversecretion of growth hormone. In adults, this condition results in an enlargement of bones; in children, the abnormality results in excessive height and is called gigantism.

Angels are spirit beings (Hebrews 1:14). As such, they do not consist of flesh (Luke 24:39), hence, they are incapable of a physical relationship.

Jesus himself plainly said that angels do not marry (Matthew 22:30; Mark 12:25; Luke 20:34-35).

There is, in fact, nothing in Genesis 6:4 that indicates the Nephilim were offspring of the marriages suggested in this context.Angels don't marry.

The word “Nephilim,” usually identified as “giants”(ASV ), is a term of uncertain meaning. Likely it suggests the idea of strength and prowess. It is used in Numbers 13:33 of certain inhabitants of Canaan whom the Israelite spies encountered in their survey of the land. The context indicates that they were merely “men of great stature” ; they were not the progeny of angels.

The line of Seth and Cain can be followed in the bible scriptures
socci

El Dorado Springs, MO

#210 Feb 17, 2013

The Matthew Henry Bible commentary has this if you want to check it.


Gen 6 says the offspring of God's people and the line of Cain resulted in "giants", a word with many meanings, this time unequally yoked union produced large problems. The physical giant is a different Hebrew word.

Noah's flood was due to SIN not GENETICS.
socci

El Dorado Springs, MO

#211 Feb 17, 2013
Flygerian wrote:
Even go to Job
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.
Do you think that the sons of Seth came with Satan to see God Almighty?

Understand Satan and his fallen angels were cast down to earth and cannot run about the universe. They are captive trapped here on earth.
In this passage God's people were in prayer or study before God and Satan was among them to address God.

Sheilaa

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#212 Feb 17, 2013
socci wrote:
The Matthew Henry Bible commentary has this if you want to check it.
Gen 6 says the offspring of God's people and the line of Cain resulted in "giants", a word with many meanings, this time unequally yoked union produced large problems. The physical giant is a different Hebrew word.
Noah's flood was due to SIN not GENETICS.
Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible

There were giants in the earth in those days,.... That is, in the days before the sons of God took the daughters of men for wives, in such a general manner as before declared, or before the declension and apostasy became so universal; even in the times of Jared, as the Arabic writers (n) understand it, who say that these giants were begotten on the daughters of Cain by the children of Seth, who went down from the mountain to them in the days of Jared, see Genesis 5:20 the word "Nephilim" comes from a word which signifies to fall; and these might be so called, either because they made their fear to fall upon men, or men, through fear, to fall before them, because of their height and strength; or rather because they fell and rushed on men with great violence, and oppressed them in a cruel and tyrannical manner; or, as some think, because they fell off and were apostates from the true religion, which is much better than to understand them of apostate angels, whom the Targum of Jonathan mentions by name, and calls them Schanchazai and Uziel, who fell from heaven, and were in the earth in those days:

and also after that, which shows that the preceding clause respects giants in former times:

when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, came into their houses and chambers, and lay with them:

and they bare children unto them, or giants unto them, as may be supplied from the former clause; for the sense is, as there were giants before this general defection, so there were at this time, when there was a mixture of the Cainites and Sethites; which were the offspring of the sons of God, or posterity of Seth, mixing with the daughters of men, or the posterity of Cain; for this is not to be understood after the flood, as Aben Ezra, Ben Melech; and so they are described in the following words:

the same became mighty men; for tallness and strength, for power and dominion, for tyranny and oppression:

which were of old: like those that were of old before; or who in after times were spoken of, as in the days of old:

men of renown, or "of name" (o); whose names were often made mention of, both for their size and for their wickedness; they were much talked of, and extolled for their exploits, and even wicked ones: they were famous men, or rather infamous; for some men get a name in the world, not for their goodness, but for their greatness, and sometimes for their great wickedness; which sense is countenanced by what follows: that there were giants in these early times is confirmed by the testimony of many Heathen writers; such were the Titans that made war against Saturn, begotten by Ouranus, who were not only of bulky bodies, but of invincible strength, as Apollodorus (p) relates, and Berosus (q) speaks of a city about Lebanon, called Enos, which was a city of giants, who were men of vast bodies, and of great strength, inventors of arms and music, were cannibals, and exceedingly debauched.

(n) Elmacinus & Patricides apud Hottinger, p. 235, 236.(o) "viri nominis", Montanus.(p) De Origine Deorum, l. 1. p. 14.(q) Antiqu. l. 1. fol. 5. 2. vid. Horat. Carmin, l. 2. Ode. 19. Ovid Metamorph. l. 1. Fab. 1.

Sheilaa

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#213 Feb 17, 2013
Flygerian wrote:
Because humans marrying humans does not cause genetic problems in the sense of nephilim since giants is a poor translation.
Just for your interest

Genetic Mutation Responsible for 'Gigantism' Disease -- Or Acromegaly -- Identified

Jan. 10, 2011 — An international research team, spearheaded by scientists from the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, has identified the genetic mutation responsible for a disease known as "gigantism" or acromegaly.
Share This:

The results of the study – conducted, among others, by the Paleogenetics Group of the Institute of Anthropology at Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Germany – were recently published in the renowned New England Journal of Medicine. It is hoped that these will help in the treatment of patients suffering from acromegaly.

Gigantism is known to be caused by a tumor of the pituitary gland, a gland located at the base of the brain from where it releases hormones that regulate several functions of the body – one being growth. Pituitary tumors can cause tissues to grow abnormally resulting in certain changes in facial appearance, enlarged hands and feet, headache and sweating – eyesight too can be affected; this condition is called acromegaly.

Márta Korbonits, Professor of Endocrinology and Metabolism at Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, initially looked at the aryl hydrocarbon receptor interacting protein (AIP)&#8201;gene. It has been known since 2006 that defects to this gene are associated with a predisposition to development of pituitary tumors, and Professor Korbonits was able to identify a specific genetic mutation in Irish patients with a family history of acromegaly. Leading international paleogenetics experts Professor Dr Joachim Burger and Martina Unterländer of the Institute of Anthropology at Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Germany subsequently extracted and analyzed the DNA from the skeleton of an 18th-century acromegaly patient preserved in the Hunterian Museum in London.

The research team discovered exactly the same mutation as the one found in living patients. Further analyses of other DNA segments located in the vicinity of this gene led to the conclusion that the Hunterian Museum's so-called "Irish Giant" had inherited the mutation from a common ancestor that he shared with a number of living Irish families who are suffering from this hereditary disorder today. The subsequent complex biostatistical calculations showed that the original mutation developed around 1,500 years ago and has been passed on from generation to generation ever since. It is estimated that around 200 to 300 people still carry the mutation today.

"The ancient DNA from the skeleton has enabled us to confirm the hypothesis that there is indeed a link between the mutation and this disease, a disorder which in the past so often resulted in tragedy," explains Professor Joachim Burger from Mainz University. He continues: "The biomathematical calculations have even provided us with a highly accurate insight into the history of this illness."

Márta Korbonits, head of the study, adds: " The most important clinical aspect of our study is that it is now possible to trace down carriers of this gene in time and treat patients before they grow to be a giant."

Professor Patrick Morrison, co-author of the study, concludes: " The benefits to patients locally are that we now have a genetic blood test that families at risk of this condition can choose to have, which allows early detection and prevention of excessive growth."
Flygerian

United States

#214 Feb 17, 2013
What you have to show Sheila is WHERE in GENESIS 6 it tells us that the sons of God are the sons of Seth. Didn't your prophet Peter say that scripture wasnt for private interpretation? Well can you show how you came to this conclusion using genesis?

And why do you keep using Jesus to explain that these sons of God were not angels? Do you know that angels appear as men in the bible?

Since: Dec 09

Chicago, IL

#215 Feb 17, 2013
Sheilaa wrote:
<quoted text>
If angels have/had the ability to sin God would not have given then immortality. That is the reason that he removed Adam and Eve from the garden so that they wouldn't eat of the tree of life. The role of angels is to do the work of God: to guide, give messages, protect deliver and destroy as ordered by God. The book of Enoch has been compared to a Jewish fairy tale and is not included in the current bible.
Sheilaa: "If angels have/had the ability to sin God would not have given then immortality."
This is so obviously a false assumption, it's astounding you don't realize it.
Lucifer WAS an angel! He was both immortal and capable of sin!
Sheilaa: "That is the reason that he removed Adam and Eve from the garden so that they wouldn't eat of the tree of life."
NO. God "removed Adam and Eve from the garden" because they HAD EATEN fruit from the Tree of Life, NOT so "they wouldn't" eat it.
messianic114

Calgary, Canada

#216 Feb 17, 2013
Flygerian wrote:
<quoted text>
If "scripture" (and I use this word loosely) doesnt say he had children or a wife what other conclusion could one come to? Guess and say he may of had children?
.
So in other words, you have NO scripture. Just another assertion without a wisp of support and another example of you changing the meaning of words.
messianic114

Calgary, Canada

#217 Feb 17, 2013
Flygerian wrote:
<quoted text>
I dont have any problem. You're just apply private interpretation to scripture. How could one get the idea that its non-physical from the passage? Especially since it says after that that he would have prolonged days?
.
This is not a private interpretation, it is the testimony of the people who lived at that time. According to the law you supposedly endorse two witnesses is what is required on a matter to test its veracity. We have the two witnesses of the virgin birth in Matthew and Luke. You on the other hand have NO witness.
.
You admit that seed can refer to physical and non-physical, after I had to show multiple verses which tell us this, yet you have nothing to prove that physical seed is what is meant by the passage. How do I know this is not a private interpretation of scripture on your part? Please keep in mind I referred to Is 53 as a messianic passage fulfilled in Yeshua. I showed that seed can be non-physical and that Yeshua sired children through spiritual rebirth. Now you need to step up to the plate and show otherwise.
.
We have even more witnesses that he lived after his death, so his days were prolonged. What witness do you have that he didn't rise from the dead? None! Can you find his body? No! Is there any historical record of him being buried anywhere or of any of the witnesses recanting their testimony? No!
.
Conclusions:
1. You do not respect the law as to witnesses.
2. You have nothing but your opinion that Yeshua's days were not prolonged.
3. You have nothing but your opinion that Yeshua is buried somewhere.
4. You have no evidence the witnesses to his resurrection are lying.
messianic114

Calgary, Canada

#218 Feb 17, 2013
Flygerian wrote:
<quoted text>
Why didnt YOUR god state that people that believe in him are of his seed? Or the seed of Abraham?
And that doesnt make sense. Before Abraham lived, I am? What is Jesus claiming here? Because hopefully you know the word used in exodus wasnt just simply "I am"?
<quoted text>
Just because a man tells you he is god that means he is?
He did tell us he would die for our sins:
<quoted text>
It matters what God Almighty said FIRST and FOREMOST
.
<quoted text> Why didnt YOUR god state that people that believe in him are of his seed?
.
It is not G-d's modus operendi to talk to people directly. He uses the Holy Spirit to reveal himself to people. Prophets and holy men testify as to what G-d reveals. I believe every letter in scripture is divinely revealed in that we have clues in the text itself that can be found through the use of computers (although this phenomenon was known prior to computers) He has said: Isa 43:6 I will say to the north, Give up; and to the south, Keep not back: bring my sons from far, and my daughters from the ends of the earth; Who are these sons if not those who obey him? This is the Messiah ingathering Israel (the sons that obey, not every descendant of Jacob).
Cisco Kid

Columbia, CA

#219 Feb 17, 2013
Sheilaa wrote:
<quoted text>
So do you believe that they are the same, and if you do why did it take until 610AD for him to reveal himself to Mohammad?
You phrased your comment wrong.

It wasn't until 610AD that Mohammed invented his Muslim religion by plagiurizing the Tanakh, The Bible and incorporating some Semitic paganisms.

Don't put the cart before the horse.
messianic114

Calgary, Canada

#220 Feb 17, 2013
Flygerian wrote:
<quoted text>
Why didnt YOUR god state that people that believe in him are of his seed? Or the seed of Abraham?
And that doesnt make sense. Before Abraham lived, I am? What is Jesus claiming here? Because hopefully you know the word used in exodus wasnt just simply "I am"?
<quoted text>
Just because a man tells you he is god that means he is?
He did tell us he would die for our sins:
<quoted text>
It matters what God Almighty said FIRST and FOREMOST
.
<quoted text>
And that doesnt make sense. Before Abraham lived, I am? What is Jesus claiming here? Because hopefully you know the word used in exodus wasnt just simply "I am"?
.
What Yeshua is claiming here is his existance prior to Abraham (which you don't believe) and that he is the "I am" of scripture (which you don't believe).
.
This is straightforward, so I have to wonder what is so hard to understand for you.
messianic114

Calgary, Canada

#221 Feb 17, 2013
Flygerian wrote:
<quoted text>
Why didnt YOUR god state that people that believe in him are of his seed? Or the seed of Abraham?
And that doesnt make sense. Before Abraham lived, I am? What is Jesus claiming here? Because hopefully you know the word used in exodus wasnt just simply "I am"?
<quoted text>
Just because a man tells you he is god that means he is?
He did tell us he would die for our sins:
<quoted text>
It matters what God Almighty said FIRST and FOREMOST
.
<quoted text>
Just because a man tells you he is god that means he is?
.
This is a true statement, but if that man walks on water, commands the forces of nature, tells us he will raise himself to life after three days and does it, we have to take seriously if he isn't who he says he is. Since he is the only candidate for Messiah as no no else came forth before the destruction of the temple, and fulfills many prophecies, then we are left with this:
1. Either He is the Messiah or there will be NO Messiah.
2. Daniel lied to us.
3. There is a mass conspiracy going on for 2000 years that no evidence has surfaced to expose.
messianic114

Calgary, Canada

#222 Feb 17, 2013
Flygerian wrote:
<quoted text>
Why didnt YOUR god state that people that believe in him are of his seed? Or the seed of Abraham?
And that doesnt make sense. Before Abraham lived, I am? What is Jesus claiming here? Because hopefully you know the word used in exodus wasnt just simply "I am"?
<quoted text>
Just because a man tells you he is god that means he is?
He did tell us he would die for our sins:
<quoted text>
It matters what God Almighty said FIRST and FOREMOST
.
<quoted text>
It matters what God Almighty said FIRST and FOREMOST
.
He has told you. You refuse to SHEMA.
messianic114

Calgary, Canada

#223 Feb 17, 2013
Flygerian wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Qualifications is talk of men. Only men look at qualifications to see if what someone says is true or not.
2. Yes. Not all young women did what they were supposed to.
3. So does the Hebrew
4. What I can do is show you where virgin is used without a doubt. And the word is bethulah not almah
5. Even if it is for a virgin (its not), it is a sign for King Ahaz. Not the messiah. How do you get around that?
6. Not a sign for the messiah
a. Not a sign for the messiah
b. Not a sign for the messiah
c. Not a sign for the messiah
.
1. I am basing my assessment on what you have shown, which is a lack of understanding of the text, failure to answer the tough questions, not even reading your own posts to see if you agree with yourself as in the HIS OFFSPRING post, etc.
2. Non-virgins were punishable by death and the value of a virgin wife is still at a premium today in semitic cultures and women are killed for having a lack of virtue.
3. <quoted text> So does the Hebrew
3a. You told us the Hebrew said almah,(post 153) this is what I mean, you don't know the text.
4. I doubt you can.
5. It is a sign to the whole house of David, not just Ahaz. It is from this family the Messiah will proceed.
6. Again you want to play with words. No one is saying the ELSs are a sign of Messiah. What I am saying is that imbedded in the text of this passage are clues that augment the sign (which is the virgin and her child). These clues tell us:
1. who the mother is - Miriam
2. Who the child is - my son
3. what the child's mission is - an offering

Since: Dec 09

Chicago, IL

#224 Feb 17, 2013
Sheilaa wrote:
<quoted text>
Just for your interest
Genetic Mutation Responsible for 'Gigantism' Disease
Share This:
The results of the study – conducted, among others, by the Paleogenetics Group of the Institute of Anthropology at Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Germany – were recently published in the renowned New England Journal of Medicine. It is hoped that these will help in the treatment of patients suffering from acromegaly.
Gigantism is known to be caused by a tumor of the pituitary gland, a gland located at the base of the brain from where it releases hormones that regulate several functions of the body – one being growth. Pituitary tumors can cause tissues to grow abnormally resulting in certain changes in facial appearance, enlarged hands and feet, headache and sweating – eyesight too can be affected; this condition is called acromegaly.
Márta Korbonits, Professor of Endocrinology and Metabolism at Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, initially looked at the aryl hydrocarbon receptor interacting protein (AIP)&#8201;gene. It has been known since 2006 that defects to this gene are associated with a predisposition to development of pituitary tumors, and Professor Korbonits was able to identify a specific genetic mutation in Irish patients with a family history of acromegaly. Leading international paleogenetics experts Professor Dr Joachim Burger and Martina Unterländer of the Institute of Anthropology at Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Germany subsequently extracted and analyzed the DNA from the skeleton of an 18th-century acromegaly patient preserved in the Hunterian Museum in London.
The research team discovered exactly the same mutation as the one found in living patients. Further analyses of other DNA segments located in the vicinity of this gene led to the conclusion that the Hunterian Museum's so-called "Irish Giant" had inherited the mutation from a common ancestor that he shared with a number of living Irish families who are suffering from this hereditary disorder today. The subsequent complex biostatistical calculations showed that the original mutation developed around 1,500 years ago and has been passed on from generation to generation ever since. It is estimated that around 200 to 300 people still carry the mutation today.
"The ancient DNA from the skeleton has enabled us to confirm the hypothesis that there is indeed a link between the mutation and this disease, a disorder which in the past so often resulted in tragedy," explains Professor Joachim Burger from Mainz University. He continues: "The biomathematical calculations have even provided us with a highly accurate insight into the history of this illness."
Professor Patrick Morrison, co-author of the study, concludes: " The benefits to patients locally are that we now have a genetic blood test that families at risk of this condition can choose to have, which allows early detection and prevention of excessive growth."
Sheilaa: "The subsequent complex biostatistical calculations showed that the original mutation developed around 1,500 years ago and has been passed on from generation to generation ever since. It is estimated that around 200 to 300 people still carry the mutation today."
This study asserts that giantism is CAUSED by a mutation that originally developed "around" 1500 years ago. In other words, there WERE no giants before then, because the cause of giantism didn't exist prior to that time .
So while this study does support your contention that giantism is genetic, it contradicts your contention that "there have been "giants" in every age". You weren't aware of that, were you?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Christian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
The False Teachings of the Hebrew Israelites, s... (Jan '14) 14 min ROG 723
News What Divides Catholics and Protestants? (Apr '08) 2 hr Hillary Killed Se... 84,694
Early Christianity 5 hr Big Al 1,816
Longinus Chronicles - Fighting for Christ 5 hr Big Al 52
Barnsweb's own NT calls him "ignorant" "untaugh... 6 hr The real Christia... 111
World War Two Veteran tells a story 9 hr Mark Rosenkranz 1
Faith during hard times 13 hr littlelambWasPAED... 26
More from around the web