|
|
Post by CoUrTnEy on Sept 8, 2004 12:27:16 GMT -5
err.. umm.. my brother Kah.. YES you did say that.. here lemme show ya summin: CoUrTnEy come on now you cant have it both ways. SONS OF G-D are considered ANGELShmmm.. seems to me that is what you saying - that "sons of God" can only be angels. All I am getting at is that considering the passage IN IT'S CONTEXT, in this particular case "sons of God" is a reference to holy men, righteous men of God, not angels IN THIS CASE. When referring to angels as "sons of God" we know that this group is dutiful and doing the will of God. In this passage, IF IT WERE ANGELS, they are not doing the will of God by having sex with human women, and therefore are no longer "sons of God". SO, by the power of deduction and common sense we know that "sons of God" in this passage is talking of human beings - not angels. Nuff said.  By the way, even if 1dell does not agree with my opinion here - he will agree that the Bible should be interpreted with the Bible..scripture with scripture.. so I am not going to use some other text to interpret the Bible.. if you so choose to do that, that is your choice. Courtney, I never said it didnt mean dutiful, true believers, etc... . What is being said is there was a group (about 200) from the sons of G-d who decided to go against a spiritual law. No one was saying the entire host FELL from grace. Only a fraction within that host did. This is why you cannot solely rely on the 666, opppss I mean 66 books of the BIBLE. U must consult xtra biblical txt. Even JUDE did that.  |
|
|
|
Post by kAHANyAH on Sept 8, 2004 12:32:38 GMT -5
The bible is not to be construed as plain txt. Atleast not to the chosen seed. Thats why many stumble and fall at it. Its design this way to snare the masses. The bible is replete with mysteries. Why is it mystical ? Well I aint said so! Peep it yourself... Mat 13:11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given. Now i ask you this Courtney when someone puts something in a mystical [mystery] form, is it not to hide from those who arent allowed to see ? I have said this many times to many people, if you aren't dissecting the bible without taking mysteries into consideration then you are one of those who the bible is hid from. Every word pertaining to the kingdom has a MYSTERY BEHIND IT. No dear, the romans is referring to True believers also - not angels. I know you will not see the light on this one, rather than something being exactly what it appears you would prefer to make it some mystical spooky thing... like i said before sometimes things are exactly what they appear to be - if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and got a big ole sign that says "I am a duck", then it prolly is a duck  |
|
|
|
Post by CoUrTnEy on Sept 8, 2004 12:37:44 GMT -5
I am not saying there are not mysteries in the Bible, but sometimes things are exactly what they appear to be.. and dont make the mistake of inputting mysteries where they do not reside. I consider all possiblities when reading the Bible, believe it. And in this case, I considered it, and rendered it as garbage because it is obvious who is being discussed in Genesis 6:2. Nuff said. The bible is not to be construed as plain txt. Atleast not to the chosen seed. Thats why many stumble and fall at it. Its design this way to snare the masses. The bible is replete with mysteries. Why is it mystical ? Well I aint said so! Peep it yourself... Mat 13:11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given. Now i ask you this Courtney when someone puts something in a mystical [mystery] form, is it not to hide from those who arent allowed to see ? I have said this many times to many people, if you aren't dissecting the bible without taking mysteries into consideration then you are one of those who the bible is hid from. Every word pertaining to the kingdom has a MYSTERY BEHIND IT. |
|
|
|
Post by kAHANyAH on Sept 8, 2004 12:38:18 GMT -5
No 1, you need to re-read that quote of mine. I said the entire host of the sons of G-d did not fall from grace. Only a handful. Are sons of G-d angels ? YES. Since you said scripture for scripture should be applied when gaining understanding in the bible. You tell me what this means... Zec 12:8 In that day shall the LORD defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem; and he that is feeble among them at that day shall be as David; and the house of David [shall be] as God, as the angel of the LORD before them. Courtney it dont get any clearer then this. When you equate a being with god (sons of G-d) , its referring to ANGELS. Christ is raising man to become Angels [sons of G-d]. Thats why in revelation John was told NOT TO BOW BEFORE THE ANGEL OF TESTAMENT. Why ? Because he was one of them. There are myriads of examples explaining this. What you gotta understand is terms in the bible do not change their meaning. They remain consistent in the contxt. they are used in. err.. umm.. my brother Kah.. YES you did say that.. here lemme show ya summin: CoUrTnEy come on now you cant have it both ways. SONS OF G-D are considered ANGELShmmm.. seems to me that is what you saying - that "sons of God" can only be angels. All I am getting at is that considering the passage IN IT'S CONTEXT, in this particular case "sons of God" is a reference to holy men, righteous men of God, not angels IN THIS CASE. When referring to angels as "sons of God" we know that this group is dutiful and doing the will of God. In this passage, IF IT WERE ANGELS, they are not doing the will of God by having sex with human women, and therefore are no longer "sons of God". SO, by the power of deduction and common sense we know that "sons of God" in this passage is talking of human beings - not angels. Nuff said. By the way, even if 1dell does not agree with my opinion here - he will agree that the Bible should be interpreted with the Bible..scripture with scripture.. so I am not going to use some other text to interpret the Bible.. if you so choose to do that, that is your choice. |
|
|
|
Post by kAHANyAH on Sept 8, 2004 12:42:30 GMT -5
Things that r exactly what they appear to be are meant to FOOL you. Thats the SNARE. I am not saying there are not mysteries in the Bible, but sometimes things are exactly what they appear to be.. and dont make the mistake of inputting mysteries where they do not reside. I consider all possiblities when reading the Bible, believe it. And in this case, I considered it, and rendered it as garbage because it is obvious who is being discussed in Genesis 6:2. Nuff said. |
|
|
|
Post by CoUrTnEy on Sept 8, 2004 12:42:34 GMT -5
You need to reread what i said, and YES things can have more than one use in the Bible, if you dont believe that then you are misguided. No one is up in here talking about all angels are fallen or that you said that.. I am saying, for the last time, that the kind of angels that have sex with human women would NOT be referred to as "sons of God" due to their actions. So the action in connection to the title clearly demonstrate we are not talking about angels in this passage. No 1, you need to re-read that quote of mine. I said the entire host of the sons of G-d did not fall from grace. Only a handful. Are sons of G-d angels ? YES. Since you said scripture for scripture should be applied when gaining understanding in the bible. You tell me what this means... Zec 12:8 In that day shall the LORD defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem; and he that is feeble among them at that day shall be as David; and the house of David [shall be] as God, as the angel of the LORD before them. Courtney it dont get any clearer then this. When you equate a being with god (sons of G-d) , its referring to ANGELS. Christ is raising man to become Angels [sons of G-d]. Thats why in revelation John was told NOT TO BOW BEFORE THE ANGEL OF TESTAMENT. Why ? Because he was one of them. There are myriads of examples explaining this. What you gotta understand is terms in the bible do not change their meaning. They remain consistent in the contxt. they are used in. |
|
|
|
Post by CoUrTnEy on Sept 8, 2004 12:44:16 GMT -5
Whatever Kah, you keep on thinking that. You aren't going to convince me. You remind me of my schizophrenic aunt that always thought people were out to get her.. the president, her doctors, etc.. Things that appear exactly what they appear to be are meant to FOOL you. Thats the SNARE. |
|
|
|
Post by kAHANyAH on Sept 8, 2004 12:47:17 GMT -5
Lets try it like this... THEY WERE ONCE SONS OF G-D [Angels]. When they committed the act of sin, G-d dis-owned them .... UNTIL REPENTENCE. After the fall they became MORTALS. Psa 82:6 I have said, Ye [are] gods; and all of you [are] children of the most High. Psa 82:7 But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes Does that work for ya ? You need to reread what i said, and YES things can have more than one use in the Bible, if you dont believe that then you are misguided. No one is up in here talking about all angels are fallen or that you said that.. I am saying, for the last time, that the kind of angels that have sex with human women would NOT be referred to as "sons of God" due to their actions. So the action in connection to the title clearly demonstrate we are not talking about angels in this passage. |
|
|
|
Post by CoUrTnEy on Sept 8, 2004 12:59:48 GMT -5
Nope sorry.. that was a nice try though.. it doesn't say they were ONCE sons of God.. it calls them sons of God in the present tense. CONTEXT CONTEXT CONTEXT Kah. Lets try it like this... THEY WERE ONCE SONS OF G-D [Angels]. When they committed the act of sin, G-d dis-owned them .... UNTIL REPENTENCE. After the fall they became MORTALS. Psa 82:6 I have said, Ye [are] gods; and all of you [are] children of the most High. Psa 82:7 But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes Does that work for ya ? |
|
|
|
Post by kAHANyAH on Sept 8, 2004 12:59:53 GMT -5
come on now CoUrTnEy you're being kina mean spirited here dont you think. I mean listen, you put up the thread and obviously you were looking for someone to rebut it with certain comments you made in there now youre resorting to name calling ? You gonna make me think chics always resort to emotional banter and tantrums when things aint gone they wayz! Hmmph!  Whatever Kah, you keep on thinking that. You aren't going to convince me. You remind me of my schizophrenic aunt that always thought people were out to get her.. the president, her doctors, etc.. |
|
|
|
Post by kAHANyAH on Sept 8, 2004 13:01:57 GMT -5
It calls them that because they were in the PROCESS of commiting the sin. Sorta like a sergeant who carries the badge of authority. He does a crime, yet still retains his authority and badge. its only after he gets caught and is prosecuted does he then lose his position and place in authority. He is now no longer a sergeant. DOES THAT WORK ? Nope sorry.. that was a nice try though.. it doesn't say they were ONCE sons of God.. it calls them sons of God in the present tense. CONTEXT CONTEXT CONTEXT Kah. |
|
|
|
Post by CoUrTnEy on Sept 8, 2004 13:09:11 GMT -5
That's a bit of a stretch i think.. Be different if we were reading the account in real time.. but we aren't .. it was written years later.. sorry that just doesn't work for me.. im not being mean spirited, I am telling the truth. You been "out there" for a while now Kah, I think that nuwaubian nonsense has seeped into your brain and clouded your thinking. I am not the only one to say so. Oh and as far as that seargant thing goes.. if we are telling the story about what he did years prior, we might call him "former sargeant".. your reasoning is too much of a stretch for me. It calls them that because they were in the PROCESS of commiting the sin. Sorta like a sergeant who carries the badge of authority. He does a crime, yet still retains his authority and badge. its only after he gets caught and is prosecuted does he then lose his position and place in authority. He is now no longer a sergeant. DOES THAT WORK ? |
|
|
|
Post by CoUrTnEy on Sept 8, 2004 13:11:24 GMT -5
By the way I didnt call you names.. i likened your behavior to something it reminds me of... take it like you want, but your conspiracy theory, mystic mumbo jumbo just doesn't jive with me and i am not going to pretend to agree with something that is so obviously wrong.
|
|
|
|
Post by CoUrTnEy on Sept 8, 2004 13:12:57 GMT -5
And truly i dont see you in a better position in this discussion than I so there is no need for me to throw a temper tantrum. Although i must say i can't believe no one else has chimed in yet.
|
|
|
|
Post by CoUrTnEy on Sept 8, 2004 13:15:35 GMT -5
Oh and one last thing, i didnt post this to start an arguement or expecting a rebuttle, I did it to empart knowlege.
|
|
