Erasmus and DC against Faiz, the battle continues

    • Lol, oh please. You obviously haven’t done your homework which is why you are struggling to provide any concrete answers. I’m not interested in your personal opinions and presuppositions. It’s obvious that you will do anything to avoid the traditional interpretation because it is so embarrassing.

      I ask again. Where in the Tanakh is the phrase “bene ha-elohim” used in a clear reference to humans?

      And why does Genesis 6 differentiate between the “sons of God” and human women if they were really just men?

      Why do the authors of Jude and 2 Peter refer to angela in the same context as Sodom and Gamorrha?

      Do your homework. No one cares about your personal opinions.

      Like

    • Hi Faiz
      Correct me if I’m wrong but you wanted a single verse that spoke of Sons of God as humans, the verse in Hosea 1:10’says Sons of the living God (EL)

      Is EL a God different from Elohim or are we talking about the same God?

      Like I said before Jude is using events to describe the characters of false teachers.

      In 2nd Peter he is telling us the these false teachers are not going to escape judgement.

      Just like the angels who revelled…The people of Noah’s day…the People of Sodom. All of them were judged.

      You said…
      So, there you go. The church fathers, at least the “earlier” ones, believed that the “sons of God” were angels. Sorry to disappoint you, but your Bible says that angels copulated with human women. You may be embarrassed by it, but it doesn’t change anything.

      These are the same people who you say are forging scriptures etc now you want to use them to prove your case.

      So these fallen angels got married right?

      Who is God holding responsible?

      Like

    • DC, you naivete is showing. Surely even you realize that we must look at the original text, and not necessarily the translation? Why is it that “bene ha-elohim” is used consistently for angels? Even Christian sources agree with me, but you think you know better. Really?

      Look at it this way. If you think the phrases “bene ha-elohim” and “bene el-hayy” are interchangeable and mean the same thing, then can you show me a verse from the Tanakh where angels are referred to as “bene el-hay”? You already failed one challenge, so here is another one for you.

      Regarding the church fathers, the point is that your double standards are exposed. You were the one who said that you don’t rely on scholars to learn the Bible, right? So, why do you appeal to them when it suits your purpose and ignore them when they don’t? Why is it that so many of the church fathers (in fact, the “earliest” ones) interpreted Genesis 6 so differently than you?

      Also, your appeal to the church fathers for proving the trinity cannot be compared to my appeal to them for proving that the sons of God were angels. Genesis is much older than your New Testament, and thus the interpretations are older as well (in contrast, the church fathers lived centuries after Jesus). Those verses were already well known even before Christianity. In the Dead Sea Scrolls, scholars found the “Book of Giants”, which also mentions angels copulating with human women. In fact, the fragments of the “Book of Giants” add that the angels even copulated with animals (!):

      “1Q23 Frag. 1 + 6 [ . . . two hundred] 2donkeys, two hundred asses, two hundred . . . rams of the] 3flock, two hundred goats, two hundred [ . . . beast of the] 4field from every animal, from every [bird . . . ] 5[ . . . ] for miscegenation [ . . . ]”http://www.gnosis.org/library/dss/dss_book_of_giants.htm

      I know it’s embarrassing, but the evidence once against you. Your Bible says that angels had sex with human women. Get over it.

      The authors of Jude and 2 Peter referred to the angels in the same context as Sodom and Gamorrha. A bit too coincidental, don’t you think? Why did they both refer to them together? If it was simply about rebelling against God, then surely they could have mentioned other acts of rebellion, not simply sexual rebellion, right?

      In the end, it’s up to you whether you choose to remain bound by your presuppositions or whether you want to look at the available evidence. The truth will set you free, but if you feel more comfortable living in a fantasy world, no one can stop you. As the saying goes:

      “You can’t teach old dog new tricks.”

      I find this statement to be very true when it comes to Christian apologists.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Hey Faiz
      I already told you that Jude was dealing with false teachers characters which were…

      Rebellion…unbelief…sexual immorality.

      In 2nd Peter he was dealing with the judgement of the false teachers.

      For example…The fallen angels…the people in Noah’s day…and sodom. Judgement came to all of them the false teachers will not escape judgement either.

      Where does the bible say fallen angels had sex with human women? Form what I can see in the text these men got married…sodom’s sin is homosexual fornication

      Why did God destroy man off the earth what do you think the reason?

      Like

  1. “Why did they both refer to them together? If it was simply about rebelling against God, then surely they could have mentioned other acts of rebellion, not simply sexual rebellion, right? ”

    They didn’t mention just sexual rebellion.

    Like

  2. ok, you asked for it.

    5And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;

    5I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not.

    Where’s the sexual sin here?

    Like

    • Oh Lord, are you really that naive? Notice that the author mentioned Noah and Lot as being saved. Noah was saved during the flood, while Lot was saved during the destruction of Sodom. Noah is mentioned after the angels, and Lot is mentioned after Sodom and Gamorrha. Surely, you can put two and two together?

      Like

  3. Sorry, I can’t follow your train of thought. Perhaps you can explain in more detail how you construct your argument.

    Like

    • It’s simple. The angels and the wicked people before the flood are mentioned, then Noah. Then the author mentioned Sodom and Gamorrha, then Lot. Do you see the comparison?

      Like

  4. There is continuity back to the creation which would be broken if the angels had intermarried with man:

    ” 7And 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, ”

    In other words there is no change in the constitution of man’s being.

    He is still just the same as God created him on the sixth day.

    Like

    • Who said anything about a “change in the constitution of man’s being”? The “daughters of men” were still humans and not all human women married angels and then had hybrid children. In fact, Genesis 6 clearly states the the “Nephilim” (the Giants) were in the earth in those days and “ALSO AFTERWARD”. How did they continue to exist “afterward”? The text tells us the reason:

      “The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterwardwhen the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.”

      If the “sons of God” were simply other human beings, then how did they have “Nephilim” children with the “daughters of men”?

      Like

  5. DC< you keep ignoring the overwhelming evidence against you. Genesis 6 very clearly states that angels (sons of God) had sex with humans. The early Jews believed that, and so did your church fathers. I’m afraid you have no where to run.

    “The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.”

    These were the “angels” who rebelled against God, because they left their heavenly habitation and chose to settle on earth and have unnatural unions with humans (and according to the Dead Sea Scrolls, with animals as well). Their rebellion was settling on earth and mating with humans, in violation of the order God had set-up.

    Why don’t you answer me challenge? I know you already failed one, but there is another. Can you show me where the phrase “bene el-hay” is used to refer to angels? Just one example will suffice.

    Like

    • Hi Faiz
      You use early Jews and church fathers when it suits you…they also believed in the two powers in heaven as well!

      Genesis 6:1-4.

      One question I need to ask is where in the bible does God call fallen angels…his sons?

      Gen 6:1  And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
      Gen 6:2  That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they werefair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

      Where did you read that what is happening in this text is unnatural?

      They got married where is the sexual sin here?

      …there were Giants in the land in those days, and also afterwards….after what? Obviously the marriage unions…these unions have no bearing on the Giants.

      If you want to believe demons have sperm and humans bodies to be able marry women then that’s down to you.

      The bible does not give the indication of any immorality taking only that place, but it does say wickedness and evil thoughts continually.

      You are putting that meaning on the text by what certain scholars have said, and that’s what you want to believe.

      I think I will rather go by what the text says than put my own meaning on it. Just the natural flow of the text is fine for me.

      It’s not about shame for me if it happened or not, it is more sad for the human race who have been attacked and ruined by the enemy.

      You still have to get around this verse…

      Gen 6:7  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.

      …I WILL DESTROY MAN WHOM I HAVE CREATED.

      I don’t think these verses have anything to do with fallen angels and women. This is a man in sin issue and its Gods decision to destroy all.

      Can you explain how Noah and his family are not infected by this weird mixture of the demonic and human relationship.

      Remember Faiz you are defending this belief!

      If you think I’m running away from answering you then the answer that is no!

      You are really in the twilight zone here

      Like

  6. “It’s simple. The angels and the wicked people before the flood are mentioned, then Noah. Then the author mentioned Sodom and Gamorrha, then Lot. Do you see the comparison?”

    I see the similarity that a group of people were disobedient and that they were punished.

    What is the other comparison?

    Like

    • Right, because you don’t want to see the more obvious similarity of sexual disobedience. That would be inconvenient to you.

      Do you really think the “wicked people” before the flood were not “disobedient” in sexual ways? The “daughters of men” sleeping with the “sons of God”?! That’s pretty “disobedient”, wouldn’t you say?

      Like

  7. “If the “sons of God” were simply other human beings, then how did they have “Nephilim” children with the “daughters of men”?”

    If the nephilim were created before and after then there was no invasion of angels.

    Like

    • You didn’t answer my question. How did the “sons of God” have “Nephilim” children? The Bible says it very clearly:

      “The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.

      It even states that the children that the “sons of God” had were “the heroes of old”. The KJV is even more explicit. It refers to them as “mighty”. Clearly, these children were stronger than the average man. How could that be if there wasn’t something unusual about the “sons of God”?

      By the way, who were these “heroes of old” that the Bible is referring to?

      Like

  8. The angels had to get a body from somewhere to be able to copulate with human beings. This would only be possible if it was created by God for them. In that case how can God condemn the angels for doing something that was only possible through his creative act?

    Another problem is that angels have no emotions or feelings. They are not fully human. How can they participate in human life in this condition?

    Like

    • Hi Madmanna
      Faiz has entered the twilight Zone in trying to prove the bible has issues.

      Like

    • true, the Bible has no issues at all, no contradictions, no errors, no discrepancies.

      It is completely perfect.

      Like

    • LOL, more Christian presuppositions! You guys really make me laugh! I’ll take this Christian comedy of errors over a comedy club any day!

      So, obviously you know a lot of angels personally, right madman? LOL!!

      The angels had left their domain and entered the domain of men. That in itself was an act of disobedience. Once they had entered the domain of men, they sinner further by copulating with human women. Don’t ask me the intricacies of how that happened! That’s your problem, not mine. I don’t believe Genesis 6 is “inspired scripture”!

      Oh and as for your claim that angels have “no emotions or feelings”, it seems you disagree with the author of Job!

      “On what were its footings set,
      or who laid its cornerstone—
      7
      while the morning stars sang together
      and all the angels[a] shouted for joy?” (Job 38:7).

      Are you willfully deceitful or just willfully ignorant of your own Bible? 😉

      Like

    • LOL, brother Paul! Obviously DC does not realize the irony of his statement. The guy is living in his own fantasy world with a Bible that is somehow free of any errors.

      I can just picture a new episode of the Twilight Zone:

      “Submitted for your approval. A man who calls himself DefendChrist believes wholeheartedly in the inerrancy of the Bible. He lives his life assured of the reality of his presuppositions. Little does he realize that he has entered into…the Twilight Zone”…(Twilight Zone theme)

      Like

  9. The other problem is that angels are spirits but you cannot copulate without a body.

    The only way they could get this body is if God created it for them.

    In that case how could they be condemned and judged by God if he made it possible in the first place?

    Another problem is that angels have no feelings or emotions so how could they participate in human life in this state?

    Of course if you are coming from a religion that has it’s roots in paganism where everything is transformable then this poses no problem.

    Like

  10. “Erasmus, you are again inserting your own presuppositions into the text. What you need to understand is that the author of Genesis did not have the same theology as Paul.”

    But the writer of Luke had the same anthropology of man as Paul:

    Luke 3 v 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 is the first son of God so all humans after him are potentially sons of God depending on whether they are chosen by God to walk with him.

    So those human beings in Genesis 6 can also rightfully be called the sons of God, just as the angels are, depending on whether or not they are walking with God.

    Thus it is not correct to say that the term sons of God can only be applied to the angels in the OT.

    Like

    • Except that every where else in the Tanakh, ONLY angels are referred to as “sons of God”. The assumptions of later Christians does not change this fact.

      And again, if the “sons of God” were in fact just men, then why does the author repeatedly refer to the “daughters of men”? Who else would the “sons of God” be attracted to, if they were men?

      Also, if they were just men, then how did they have children who were comparable to the Nephilim?

      Like

  11. LOL DC, you still don’t realize that Judaism was not a monolith! There were many different competing beliefs. There were binitarians (not trinitarians), there were unitarians, there were people who believed in an afterlife and those that didn’t. Get it? So you are just moving the goal post and trying to distract from your own failures by appealing to the differing beliefs of the early Jews.

    Let me give you another example. Early Jews, at least some of them, actually believed that God was an old man with grey hair! Submitted for your approval (😉 ):

    In his “vision”, Daniel saw the “Ancient of Days” and provided a vivid description of this being (who was obviously “God”), including clothing that “was white as snow”, and hair that “was white as wool”. But as historians have recognized, this description of a white-haired God seems to be influenced by pagan mythology. According to Hammer:

    “[t]he imagery probably comes from Canaanite mythology, in which El was regarded as an aged deity with grey hair.” (http://quranandbible.blogspot.com/2016/09/the-book-of-daniel.html).

    The Jews were Canaanites, so it’s not surprising that some of them were influenced by the local mythology. Also, notice that “El” was known to the Canaanites as well.

    Still not answering my challenge I see? Yes, you are running away and trying desperately to distract from your failures. I take it you cannot answer my challenge? I take it you realize that “bene ha-elohim” is not interchangeable with “bene el-hay” but are too embarrassed to admit it?

    LOL, and I am not “defending” the idea that angels can copulate with humans. I don’t believe in the Bible dude, but you do! I am showing that your Bible clearly refers to angel-human sex. Sorry if that bothers you (it should), but there it is. Now you two choices: you can either admit that the Bible makes this absurd claim and come out into the real world OR you can continue to close your eyes and ears and pretend that you are living in the real world (which is actually the Twilight Zone). Cue the “Twilight Zone” theme.

    Like

    • Hey Faiz
      If you are a Muslim and you don’t believe in the bible then your prophet is a false prophet.

      And furthermore why are you battling for a certain belief ( angels having sex with women) when you don’t believe in the bible.

      You sound like a confused person battling for an opinion against another opinion when you don’t believe in either opinion surely you are confused.

      You said…
      LOL, and I am not “defending” the idea that angels can copulate with humans. I don’t believe in the Bible dude, but you do! I am showing that your Bible clearly refers to angel-human sex

      You have spent the last couple of days defending that opinion otherwise why post your comments…or are you just confused.

      Like

  12. “Except that every where else in the Tanakh, ONLY angels are referred to as “sons of God”. The assumptions of later Christians does not change this fact. ”

    That’s simply because until the church is formed there is no community which can be referred to collectively as the sons of God. Not because the term can only be applied to angels. The occurrence of the word in the Tanakh is dependent upon redemptive history not the condition that you have imposed.

    Adam was the first son of God and there was a community of believers before the flood to which this term could apply. After the flood there was no community of the sons of God until the church was formed. This explains why the term does not occur in the tanakh after this. Sorry to disappoint you.

    Like

    • Adam was never referred to as a “son of God” in the Tanakh. That’s what you are not getting. The phrase “bene ha-elohim” is used a few times in the Tanakh and it ALWAYS refers to angels. It is illogical to claim that Genesis 6 would be somehow different.

      Like

    • More presuppositions. Is that all you have?

      Your entire is a circular argument. Not very convincing. Sorry to disappoint you.

      Like

  13. “And again, if the “sons of God” were in fact just men, then why does the author repeatedly refer to the “daughters of men”? Who else would the “sons of God” be attracted to, if they were men?

    Also, if they were just men, then how did they have children who were comparable to the Nephilim?”

    I reply:

    The phrase “daughters of men” simply means that the sons of God community of believers married indiscriminately without regard to belief.

    The Nephilim were already on the earth before this happened. The giants did not occur as a result of this event. There was no change in that respect so your question is a non argument.

    ” 4There 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.”

    Like

    • You must be joking. If the “sons of God” were “righteous” men, then why would they “indiscriminately” marry those women? What if they had “discriminately” chosen the women? How would the women have been described? Would it still not be as “daughters of men”?

      It is more likely that the “sons of God” were being differentiated from the “daughters of men” precisely because they were not men!

      I know the Nephilim were there before. But the text says that they were there afterwards as well WHEN the “sons of God” had children with the “daughters of men”. And those children are described as being “mighty”. Why?

      Like

  14. “while the morning stars sang together
    and all the angels[a] shouted for joy?” (Job 38:7).

    Are you willfully deceitful or just willfully ignorant of your own Bible?”

    Good point. Well seen.

    Like

  15. “Do you really think the “wicked people” before the flood were not “disobedient” in sexual ways? The “daughters of men” sleeping with the “sons of God”?! That’s pretty “disobedient”, wouldn’t you say?”

    I reply:

    It is disobedient but still within the bounds of normal sexual behaviour which is not against the nature of man as God created him.

    The reason it is disobedient is not because men are sleeping with aliens as it were or some other sexual aberration.

    In connection with the flood the sin that is brought out in the text is violence. Of course there could have been a prevalence of other sexual sins, probably adultery. We cannot say that there was abnormal sexual behaviour without some evidence to back this up.

    Like

    • What??!! Are you joking?! It was “normal sexual behavior”? Um no. “Normal” sexual behavior, according to the Bible, is sex within the bounds of marriage between a man and a woman. Thus, for the “daughters of men” to sleep with the “sons of God”, even within the bounds of marriage, was not “normal”. It was “unnatural”.

      Like

    • Um no. Genesis 6 first mentions the “wickedness” of mankind directly AFTER mentioning the sins of the “sons of God” and the “daughters of men”.

      “The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.

      5 The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time. 6 The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled. 7 So the Lord said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them.” 8 But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord.”

      Thus, the disobedience should be understood in the context of the union of the “sons of God” and the “daughters of men”.

      Like

  16. “Adam was never referred to as a “son of God” in the Tanakh. That’s what you are not getting. The phrase “bene ha-elohim” is used a few times in the Tanakh and it ALWAYS refers to angels. It is illogical to claim that Genesis 6 would be somehow different.”

    The tanakh is not the complete revelation of God. Men are also sons of God as Mark and Paul clearly state. This disproves Islam by itself alone.

    Like

    • LOL, it was and still is to Jews. Your Christian presuppositions are not very convincing! The fact that this is the best you can do disproves Christianity by itself alone.

      Like

  17. “is used a few times in the Tanakh and it ALWAYS refers to angels”

    Just cos Faiz says so don’t make it so.

    Like

    • LOL, that’s where you’re wrong! I’m not the only one who says so. Here is some reading material, from Jewish and Christian sources that agree with me:

      http://judaicseminar.org/bible/beresheet5.pdf
      http://www.letusreason.org/Doct11.htm
      http://www.khouse.org/articles/1997/110/

      Sorry if it pops your bubble or makes you uncomfortable, but the fact is that “bene ha elohim” is always used in the Tanakh for angels.

      Like

    • LOL, that’s where you’re wrong! It’s not just me who says this. Here is a reading list for your, from both Jewish and Christian sources:

      http://www.khouse.org/articles/1997/110/
      http://www.letusreason.org/Doct11.htm
      http://judaicseminar.org/bible/beresheet5.pdf

      Sorry if this burst your bubble or makes you uncomfortable, but your Bible talks about angels and humans copulating. I have presented scholarly evidence. What have you presented? Oh right, your personal opinions, circular arguments and presuppositions.

      Like

    • Hi Faiz
      If you think the scholars and the website links you posted are correct then you must also believe what the book of Enoch says…the children born to this demonic and human relationship are said to be 300 cubits tall which by today’s measurement in feet = 450 feet tall.

      And if we look at Noah’s ark that was built in the same time period the bible says…

      Gen 6:13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.
      Gen 6:14 Make thee an ark of gopher wood; rooms shalt thou make in the ark, and shalt pitch it within and without with pitch.
      Gen 6:15 And this is the fashion which thou shalt make it of: The length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits.

      They were as tall as the ark was in length!

      This reminds me of a Hadith where Adam is said to be 90feet tall if we convert the cubits to feet, it seems like Muhammad was in on the act.

      So Faiz lets go back to the Enoch not one of the demonic / human offspring could get in the ark and to be honest a group of them could in fact destroy the ark.

      And if Noah’s sons and wives are repopulating the earth with righteous seed where did the Giants come from in Numbers 13:33

      Like

  18. “What??!! Are you joking?! It was “normal sexual behavior”? Um no. “Normal” sexual behavior, according to the Bible, is sex within the bounds of marriage between a man and a woman. ”

    It’s sex between man and woman so in that sense normal.

    Like

  19. Hosea 1 v 10 says clearly that men are also sons of God. This shows that the sons of God in Genesis 6 could have been men. Syntax does not decide the issue alone as you wish to impose arbitrarily upon the discussion. The concept is not just confined to the NT.

    Like

    • LOL, repeating the same debunked argument over and over is not very convincing. Your personal opinions don’t mean anything. I have supported my claims with evidence from scholarly sources, whereas all you can muster are your personal opinions. Hmmm, talk about arbitrary…

      Just because Erasmus says so does not make it so.

      Hosea 1:10 uses the phrase “bene el-hay”. Genesis 6 uses the phrase “bene ha-elohim”. Not the same.

      Like

  20. ““is used a few times in the Tanakh and it ALWAYS refers to angels”

    A good example of a circular argument methinks.

    Like

    • LOL, methinks Erasmus is getting desperate. The only circular arguments are the one coming from you, as we have seen above.

      It’s very easy to disprove me. All you have to do is bring an example of the use of the phrase “bene ha-elohim” for humans from the Tanakh outside of Genesis 6.

      Like

  21. DC said:

    “Hey Faiz
    If you are a Muslim and you don’t believe in the bible then your prophet is a false prophet.

    And furthermore why are you battling for a certain belief ( angels having sex with women) when you don’t believe in the bible.

    You sound like a confused person battling for an opinion against another opinion when you don’t believe in either opinion surely you are confused.

    You said…
    LOL, and I am not “defending” the idea that angels can copulate with humans. I don’t believe in the Bible dude, but you do! I am showing that your Bible clearly refers to angel-human sex

    You have spent the last couple of days defending that opinion otherwise why post your comments…or are you just confused.”

    LOL, you’re just getting silly now dude!

    Any reasonable person would conclude that that the Bible is false. Therefore, the blessed Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) told the truth. If you’re too blind to see it, that’s your problem.

    I have referred to the angel-human copulation story to prove three things:

    1. The silliness of Christian apologists for attacking the hadith about Satan farting.
    2. The absurdity of the Bible in claiming that angels copulated with humans.
    3. The fact that Christians are so embarrassed about the stories in their Bible that they will go to great lengths to change what it actually says.

    And I haven’t been disappointed! Despite the collective effort of so many apologists, none of you have been able to provide any substantive rebuttal.

    Like

    • Hi Faiz
      You are confused because you are backing an event you say happened in a book that you say is false, if the book is false where and how did you come to the conclusion that this story is true.

      If a book is false I wouldn’t believe anything in it, which is why I said you are confused and so confused that you posting all these website links to “prove” your point which means absolutely nothing if the book is false…you are really confused.

      Who is embarrassed? I don’t sense that from anyone debating with you, that in your mind we know why we believe what we believe and you don’t.

      Is “El” a different God from “Elohim” or in other words is the God in Job 1:6 different from the God in Hosea 1:10?

      This is not a lot different from me saying to you quote from the Koran where Jesus says himself…”I am the Messiah”

      What stories are you talking about in the bible we are embarrassed about?

      Like

  22. Another reason which supports the view that ordinary men are in view here is that there is no coherent reason for the sudden appearance of the lust of the angels for men if we go with the angels view.

    On the other hand there is a reasonable and natural explanation if we assume that the text is speaking about men exclusively.

    “1And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, 2That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.”

    You said: “It’s very easy to disprove me. All you have to do is bring an example of the use of the phrase “bene ha-elohim” for humans from the Tanakh outside of Genesis 6.”

    I reply:

    I don’t have to bring evidence based on your faulty premise.

    Redemptive history explains why the term is not found again in the OT.

    Like

    • LOL, so Erasmus decides that he does not need to bring evidence for his own faulty claims. Ooookay, whatever you say!

      Your premise is faulty from the get-go because there is no coherent reason for the “sons of God” (if they were just men) to all of a sudden become attracted to women only after the human population began to grow.

      As it stands, the weight of the evidence (the textual and exegetical evidence) supports the angel view. Just because you guys are uncomfortable with it does not change anything. Your Bible claims that angels copulated with humans. Sorry!

      Like

  23. The prophecy itself in Hosea 1 tells us why the term is not found again after Gen 6 in the OT.

    It is because it is something that will come to fulfillment in the future:

    Hosea 1 v 10 Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered; and it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God.

    This is something that was destined to be fulfilled under the New Covenant, not the old.

    Like

    • “The prophecy itself in Hosea 1 tells us why the term is not found again after Gen 6 in the OT.”

      should be:

      “The prophecy itself in Hosea 1 tells us why the term is not found again after Gen 6 in the OT to identify a group of men living upon the earth at that time, i.e. before the canon of the OT is closed.” or words to that effect.

      and:

      “Redemptive history explains why the term is not found again in the OT.”

      should be:

      “Redemptive history explains why the term is not found again in the OT to identify a group of men living upon the earth at that time” or words to that effect.

      Why is the demographic spread of men upon the earth given as the reason why the sons of God found the daughters of men to be fair if the truth is that the real cause behind this is that the angels left their first estate?

      Like

    • LOL, so then why doesn’t it use the term, even if it is a prophecy? What difference does it make that it will happen in the future? Couldn’t the Bible “prophesy” that they will be called “bene ha-elohim”? Faulty Christian logic strikes again…

      Like

  24. DC said:

    “Hi Faiz
    If you think the scholars and the website links you posted are correct then you must also believe what the book of Enoch says…the children born to this demonic and human relationship are said to be 300 cubits tall which by today’s measurement in feet = 450 feet tall.

    And if we look at Noah’s ark that was built in the same time period the bible says…

    Gen 6:13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.
    Gen 6:14 Make thee an ark of gopher wood; rooms shalt thou make in the ark, and shalt pitch it within and without with pitch.
    Gen 6:15 And this is the fashion which thou shalt make it of: The length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits.

    They were as tall as the ark was in length!

    This reminds me of a Hadith where Adam is said to be 90feet tall if we convert the cubits to feet, it seems like Muhammad was in on the act.

    So Faiz lets go back to the Enoch not one of the demonic / human offspring could get in the ark and to be honest a group of them could in fact destroy the ark.

    And if Noah’s sons and wives are repopulating the earth with righteous seed where did the Giants come from in Numbers 13:33”

    Oh boy, you just are not getting it, are you?

    I don’t believe any of this nonsense! Get that through your head. I don’t believe in Genesis or Enoch. But you do, and since I have proven that the text describes angel-human sex, it is YOU who must believe this nonsense, no me!

    By the way, by referring to the Book of Enoch, you once again shoot yourself in the foot. It is actually further proof that the author of Jude was talking about angels having sex with humans, because we know that the author of Jude used the Book of Enoch as one of his sources. In fact, he even directly quotes from it! Jude 1:14-15 states:

    “Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about them: “See, the Lord is coming with thousands upon thousands of his holy ones to judge everyone, and to convict all of them of all the ungodly acts they have committed in their ungodliness, and of all the defiant words ungodly sinners have spoken against him.””

    Scholars have recognized that this passage is taken from 1 Enoch 1:9!

    And what does the Book of Enoch say about Genesis 6? Exactly what I have been saying all along!

    “And it came to pass when the children of men had multiplied that in those days were born unto 2 them beautiful and comely daughters. And the angels, the children of the heaven, saw and lusted after them, and said to one another: ‘Come, let us choose us wives from among the children of men 3 and beget us children.’ And Semjaza, who was their leader, said unto them: ‘I fear ye will not 4 indeed agree to do this deed, and I alone shall have to pay the penalty of a great sin.’ And they all answered him and said: ‘Let us all swear an oath, and all bind ourselves by mutual imprecations 5 not to abandon this plan but to do this thing.’ Then sware they all together and bound themselves 6 by mutual imprecations upon it. And they were in all two hundred; who descended in the days of Jared on the summit of Mount Hermon, and they called it Mount Hermon, because they had sworn 7 and bound themselves by mutual imprecations upon it. And these are the names of their leaders: Samlazaz, their leader, Araklba, Rameel, Kokablel, Tamlel, Ramlel, Danel, Ezeqeel, Baraqijal, 8 Asael, Armaros, Batarel, Ananel, Zaq1el, Samsapeel, Satarel, Turel, Jomjael, Sariel. These are their chiefs of tens” (Chapter 6).

    So here is even MORE proof that Genesis 6 was referring to angel-human sex. Give it up DC. You’re fighting a losing battle. The weight of the evidence is completely against you. Save yourself the time and just admit that you are wrong.

    Oh and by the way, the hadith about Adam being tall referred to his height in Paradise, not on earth, so nice try with the desperate attempt at diverting attention from the absurdities in your Bible!😉

    Like

    • Hi Faiz

      Neither do you understand if the book is false then it is not reality why are trying to prove something happened when you don’t believe it happened?

      You sound like an atheist trying to prove there is no God.

      Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah’s Apostle said, “The first group of people who will enter Paradise, will be glittering like the full moon and those who will follow them, will glitter like the most brilliant star in the sky… All of them will look alike and will resemble their father Adam (in statute), sixty cubits tall.” (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 55, Number 544)

      Does that mean when you get to heaven you will be 90 feet tall as well?

      How was Adams wife? What about their children the reason I ask is because of another narration.

      Narrated Abu Huraira:The Prophet said, “Allah created Adam, making him 60 cubits tall. …. People have been decreasing in stature since Adam’s creation. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 55, Number 543)

      So how tall were their kids (50…60..70 feet) on the earth

      Don’t worry I’m not diverting attention away from the issue because this is one of the issues mentioned with demon / human offspring they were meant to be giants remember.

      The Koran doesn’t say the OT is false then why are you calling it false?

      Like

  25. DC said:

    “Hi Faiz
    You are confused because you are backing an event you say happened in a book that you say is false, if the book is false where and how did you come to the conclusion that this story is true.

    If a book is false I wouldn’t believe anything in it, which is why I said you are confused and so confused that you posting all these website links to “prove” your point which means absolutely nothing if the book is false…you are really confused.

    Who is embarrassed? I don’t sense that from anyone debating with you, that in your mind we know why we believe what we believe and you don’t.

    Is “El” a different God from “Elohim” or in other words is the God in Job 1:6 different from the God in Hosea 1:10?

    This is not a lot different from me saying to you quote from the Koran where Jesus says himself…”I am the Messiah”

    What stories are you talking about in the bible we are embarrassed about?”

    LOL dude, you are completely delusional. I never said that the event actually happened! I am saying that your Bible claims that such an event happened! Get the difference?

    I am posting scholarly evidence to show that early Jews and Christians believed that Genesis 6 was describing how angels lusted after human women. You have no intelligent response to any of this evidence except your own personal opinions and straw man arguments.

    It is obvious that you guys are embarrassed by the idea of angels having sex with humans. Why else are you trying so hard to “prove” that the “sons of God” were just men, even though all evidence points to them being angels? So yeah, I sense a great deal of embarrassment. You don’t want it to be true, because you know how absurd it is.

    Regarding “El” and “Elohim”, I already showed that the two phrases “bene ha-elohim” and “bene el-hay” were not interchangeable. I have supported this with scholarly and textual evidence. All you can muster in your desperation are your personal opinions. How pathetic!

    And by the way, as I said, the Bible refers to “El” as being an old man with grey hair. Is that “God” to you? And old guy? Sounds more like pagan mythology to me. And that is exactly what it is…a pagan myth that was borrowed from Canaanite folklore.

    Do you have any substantive rebuttal to any of this evidence, or are you going to continue to provide your own baseless opinions and straw men?

    Like

  26. LOL DC, now you are really getting desperate! It’s the modus operandi of Christians to resort to red herrings and straw men arguments when they have way of responding intelligently to any challenge to their Bible by Muslims.

    Didn’t I say you need to know your place? First, you try to teach me about what the Bible says. Now, you’re trying to me what the Quran and Hadiths say? Know your place dude. I don’t need you to teach me about my religion. I know your Bible and I know the Quran and Hadiths even better.

    Stick to the issue at hand. Your Bible states that angels copulated with humans. The author of Jude believed it and even quoted from an apocryphal book that gave a detailed account of this event. Do you admit that?

    Like

  27. Job lived after the flood, Genesis 6 narrates events before the flood. So the term sons of God was already defined and understood at the time the events in Genesis 6 took place, long before Job was written.

    The Genesis 6 account, as all biblical accounts, does not need an external context in order for it to make sense.

    Like

    • Your post makes no sense. If the phrase was “already defined and understood” before Job’s time as referring to humans, then it would have made for the author of “Job” to refer to the angels as the “sons of God”. However, if the phrase was actually “already defined and understood” as referring to angels, then it makes sense that the author used that term.

      As it stands, there is overwhelming evidence that the phrase was used for angels, and as I showed above, it was interpreted that way consistently by early Jews and Christians. The author of Jude was obviously familiar with the apocryphal book 1 Enoch and used it as a source. 1 Enoch mentions angels copulating with humans.

      You guys need to give it up. The evidence is overwhelmingly against your revisionist interpretations.

      Like

  28. You cannot arbitrarily impose the context of Job on Genesis 6. The meanings of words are derived from their context.

    There is nothing in the context of Genesis 6 to suggest that angels are having sex with humans.

    It is clear from the OT that God had spiritual children during OT times. Genesis 6 is just one example of this.

    Like

    • Erasmus, your personal opinions are very unimpressive. If you want to remain in your denial, that’s your business. I already showed that the context of Genesis 6 very clearly shows that angels had sex with humans. Get over it. You haven’t responded to the points I raised, which doesn’t surprise me at all. You are very high on your own opinions.

      I notice you also haven’t answered my question about Jude and Enoch. DC has remained silent on this issue, and so have you. Why are you apologists so dishonest with yourselves? How deep in denial are you?

      Like

  29. DC, you said on the other thread:

    “Hi Faiz
    Maybe I can get your thoughts on this because you are adamant that the Angels had sex with women.

    Does God call demons his sons?

    And if he doesn’t are you saying that this is the act of righteous Angels?”

    Oy vei, are you willfully dense or can you just not help it? I don’t believe that angels had sex with women. I believe that your Bible says so! Get it?

    Now, will you answer my question, which you have been avoiding? Your Bible states that angels copulated with humans. The author of Jude believed it and even quoted from an apocryphal book that gave a detailed account of this event. Do you admit that?

    Like

  30. No answers from Erasmus or DC?

    Why was “El” described as an old man with grey hair? Why did the author of Jude quote from the apocryphal book 1 Enoch, which clearly refers to angel-human sex? Why does Genesis 6 consistently refer to the “sons of God” and the “daughters of men” separately if the latter were just men? If they were just men, why were their children compared to the Nephilim and described as being “mighty”?

    Like

  31. Nothing from DC or Erasmus? Oh well…

    I guess we can conclude that the author of Jude believed that angels had sex with angels, just as the author of 1 Enoch did. Problem solved!

    Like

    • If sons of God= angels then I guess that according to Faiz’s Islam there are no angels since Allah has no sons.

      So Faiz the rat just baited himself and dismantled his own religion! Good one!!

      But seriously, that passage has been controversial from the get go; to assert that it must be a reference to angels is to ignore the mass amount of scholarship to the contrary. But we all know Faiz likes arguing ad nauseum with total disregard for nuance and differing thought.

      Like

    • LOL, so Lassie attempts to take a crack at the embarrassing expose of his Bible, and does what he usually does, which is to deflect and make an utterly idiotic straw man argument!

      Poor, poor Lassie…such childish logic…

      Pay attention now, you mangy mutt. I don’t believe in your Bible you moron, so I could care less what your Bible calls angels. Of course, they are not really “sons of God”. That’s just the way your contradictory and heavily-edited Bible calls them. So what?

      Secondly, you obviously did not read the posts above and simply decided to intervene in a topic just to open your big mouth. Oooh, such anger from the rabid mutt!

      Get it together Lassie. Early Jews and Chrustians believed the sons of God were angels. Don’t be lazy. Read the posts above and educate yourself. Your Bible says angels copulated with humans! Ouch!!!

      I also noted that you didn’t answer the question that your fellow apologists cannot answer. The author of Jude quoted from 1 Enoch. 1 Enoch clearly refers to angel-human copulation. Do you admit that? Come on now, bark all you want but try to be a man and answer the question!😉

      Like

    • Hi Faiz
      You keep trying to make an issue out of Jude quoting Enoch as though he was quoting from his book.

      Consider the following…

      Act 17:28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.

      The apostle Paul is quoting from a poem called Phaenomena by Aratus, the fact that Paul uses does not mean Paul believes it is inspired but he uses the quote to make a point.

      1Co 15:33 Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners.

      This is a quotation that comes from a Greek writer called Menander 343-291AD in his play called Thais…does this mean that Paul thinks there is something great about this work?

      Paul is using this to again a point.

      Tit 1:12 One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, The Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies.

      Paul is quoting a poet called Epimenides here is a section of the poem.

      They fashioned a tomb for you, holy and high one.
      Cretans, always liars, evil beasts, idle bellies
      But you are not dead, you live and abide forever.
      For in you we live and move have our being.

      Even Jesus when dealing with Saul used a phrase to through to him that has nothing to do with religion but the secular world

      Act 9:5 And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.

      The phrase “kick against the pricks” comes from Aeschtlus 525-456BC in his play called Agamemnon…but does that means it’s inspired

      What about Jude?

      Jud 1:14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,
      Jud 1:15 To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.

      Enoch 1:9 says

      And behold! He cometh with ten thousands of holy ones to execute judgement upon all, and to destroy [all] the ungodly: and to convict all flesh of all the works [of their ungodliness] which they have ungodly committed, and of all the hard things which ungodly sinners [have spoken] against Him.

      Here is my question if Jude was quoting from an apocryphal book written a couple of hundred before Jude was written then who was Moses quoting.

      The phrase “The Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints” is not unique to Jude or Enoch because Moses used it many years earlier.

      Deu 33:1 And this is the blessing, wherewith Moses the man of God blessed the children of Israel before his death.
      Deu 33:2 And he said, The LORD came from Sinai, and rose up from Seir unto them; he shined forth from mount Paran, and he came with ten thousands of saints: from his right hand went a fiery law for them.

      So there must oral tradition!

      Like

    • DC, you must be joking! Paul was quoting a Roman source, not a book which was regarded by many Jews as a canonical book. So nice try with the red herring.

      And do you honestly think Jude was quoting Deuteronomy or some “oral tradition”? Why would we think that when the only clear source for the quote is from 1 Enoch? It “must” be an “oral tradition”? Really? That’s like saying that craters are not caused by asteroids but rather an alien mother ship! You ignore the direct evidence in favor of some other absurd alternative for which no evidence exists.

      A reasonable person would look at the quote from Jude and the quote from Enoch and conclude that they are the same. Jude even named his source as Enoch! There was no need for an “oral tradition”! He had a direct source!

      You guys really make me laugh! How desperate are you? Denial is an ugly thing.

      Like

    • Hi Faiz
      Are you saying that you have to believe in the writing of a book that you take a quote from?

      Does Jude say he is quoting from what was written or from what was prophesied?

      Can you explain Moses using the phrase ” he cometh with 10,000 of his saints” this is thousands of years before Jude and closer to the time of the actual prophecy?

      My point is that you can quote something out a book a written work that says something that is true, yet not believe in the work of that writer, or from oral tradition passed down.

      just like Paul used Greek poets. Can you quote the Roman source you mentioned?

      The book of Enoch says the Giants were 450 ft tall and Muhammad said Adam was 90 ft tall maybe there is some relationship when it comes myths and legends.

      Like

  32. Paul, why you always gotta criticise a brother? 😉

    Mangy mutt…It’s one of those dogs with a skin disease. Lassie is clearly affected which explains why he barks so much! Lol!!!

    Liked by 1 person

  33. of course you have to say you care less because you self refuted your own religion. That must be slightly embarrassing. You seem to think you know what a son of God is, despite your religion teaching you that no such thing exists. Talk about a ratty confusion!!

    And I answered you already; this text has multiple competing interpretations. It always has. You probably never realised this given your “research” is normally based on ijaz or kaleemand I doubt you’ve ever done any academic Old Testament studies. But you can prove me wrong- what Old Testament theological or Hebrew studies have you done to think you can speak authoratatively on something your religion teaches you is non existence?

    Like

    • LOL, Lassie! You are so desperate to save your debunked religion, you resort to silly and logically flawed arguments!

      Your Bible says that the “sons of God” were angels, you idiot! Not I! I am just pointing out what the Bible is saying. I never said I believed it! Of course I don’t believe in angels descending to earth to copulate with humans. This absurd story is Biblical, not Quranic. I don’t believe in such asinine garbage. The problem for you is that this story is found in your Bible. Sorry! 😉

      You didn’t answer anything you silly dog. I already dealt with the “multiple competing interpretations” above. You are a late arrival on this thread. I’ve been there, done that. The “competing interpretations” did not exist until much later. Early Jews and Christians believed that the “sons of God” were angels. The Dead Sea Scrolls and the early church fathers all believed as such. Even the so-called “inspired” author of Jude believed it, and so did the author of 2 Peter. In fact, the author of Jude quoted from the apocryphal book 1 Enoch and used it as a source. This book provides a more detailed version of the story.

      And by the way, you laughable apologist, I have relied on my own research to come to this conclusion! Unlike you, I actually do real research. All of the sources I have used above are from Jewish and Christian sources, not Muslim ones. I know it hurts, Lassie! LOL!

      Like

  34. Sons of God and daughters of men are literary devices to offset and contrast the opposing groups of men in terms of their spiritual condition:

    e.g. King James Bible Ezekiel 16:57

    Before thy wickedness was discovered, as at the time of thy reproach of the daughters of Syria, and all that are round about her, the daughters of the Philistines, which despise thee round about.

    Another problem with the view that they are angels is that the angels are invisible to men. How do men have sex with invisible beings?

    They are only made visible when they have a specific message to give to specific human beings.

    “Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.”

    “1Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD. 2And the LORD said unto Satan, From whence comest thou? And Satan answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it”

    Like

    • The giants and the mighty men are both human beings.

      Like

    • Erasmus, you keep resorting to circular arguments which only damage your view even more.

      How is the phrase “daughters of the Philistines” the same as “daughters of men”? The former is referring to a specific group of human beings, whereas the latter is referring to human beings in general. Thus, it makes no sense to differentiate between “sons of God” and “daughters of men”, especially in the context of sexual relations. If the sons of God were men, then who else would they have been attracted to?

      It is obvious that your reasons for denying the angel interpretation are largely based on the fact that you find the idea to be absurd. That is why your arguments are not based on the actual text but on your own presuppositions.

      But even then, your presuppositions are absurd and contradict your own Bible! Angels are “invisible”? What about the angels that visited Lot? They were not “invisible”! In fact, the townspeople wanted to have sex with them!

      “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.”

      And you STILL haven’t answered the question of why the author of Jude, who was supposedly “inspired”, quoted from an apocryphal book (1 Enoch), which incidentally also gave a detailed account of how the angels descended to earth and decided to have sex with humans. You guys are avoiding this question like the plague!

      Like

  35. Faiz,

    The phrase daughters of men in contrast to sons of God describes how the community of those walking with God begins to intermarry with those who did not.

    You have no argument from the context itself which demands any other interpretation. You have to go to events in the future to impose a foreign context upon the passage.

    If you read my comment I did not say that angels are never visible but that normally that is the case. The visitations of angels are the exception not the rule.

    The idea that angels had sex with men is absurd because of what the bible tells us about them, not because I am embarrassed by the idea. Also it is not necessary to impose this idea on the bible.

    The passage in Job is expanding the scope of the term “sons of God” to include angels. Up to to that point in time it only referred to men.

    I don’t agree with any of your claims regarding the book of Jude.

    According to your argument Israel itself must be an angel:

    Hosea 11 v 1 When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt.

    God must have been drawing on a tradition of usage of the concept of men being the sons of God when he spoke through Hosea. This must be based on his previous dealings with men as is evident from Genesis 6. It just doesn’t spring out of nowhere.

    Like

    • Erasmus, your entire premise is a circular argument. Why would the phrase “bene ha-elohim” be used only once to describe men and then from that point on be used EXCLUSIVELY to describe angels? You are desperately trying to apply an interpretation that simply does not fit.

      The context of Genesis 6 strongly shows that they “sons of God” were angels. That is why they are distinguished from “men” and the “daughters of men”.

      Since angels did take human form in the Bible, then your argument is moot. What difference does it make if it wasn’t “normal”?

      And no, you find the idea absurd from the get-go, and that is why you are trying so hard to deny it. You know that it creates all sorts of problems for your Bible, so to avoid those problems, you deny the clear context and the consistent interpretations of early Jews and Christians.

      You have no evidence, aside from your personal opinions, that the author of Job was “expanding the scope of the term”.

      Whether you choose to “agree” or not about Jude and Enoch, the evidence is there. I didn’t ask for your personal opinion. I asked you to acknowledge the plain facts. Did Jude quote from 1 Enoch or not?

      Finally, your straw man argument about Hosea 11:1 is another failed apologetic slight of hand. The phrase I am interested in is “bene ha-elohim”. That phrase is not used in Hosea 11:1.

      And by the way, appealing to Hosea 11:1 backfires for you. Like DC, in your desperate attempts to use other verses of the Bible to help you, you actually shoot yourself in the foot. Since you acknowledge that Hosea 11:1 is talking about ISRAEL, then the author of the Gospel of Matthew was obviously mistaken when he misquoted Hosea 11:1 as referring to the MESSIAH:

      “And so was fulfilled what the Lord had said through the prophet: “Out of Egypt I called my son”” (Matthew 2:15).

      Like

  36. Faiz,

    who said :” Why would the phrase “bene ha-elohim” be used only once to describe men and then from that point on be used EXCLUSIVELY to describe angels?”.

    That’s easy to answer because of rememptive history. After the flood there is no community to which the term could apply until Jesus introduces the new form of the kingdom of God.

    “Erasmus, your entire premise is a circular argument. Why would the phrase “bene ha-elohim” be used only once to describe men and then from that point on be used EXCLUSIVELY to describe angels?”

    No it doesn’t. There is no indication in the context itself which is why you have to go in the future to find a meaning for something in the past. This is absurd and irrational hermeneutics. Driven and justified only by your islamic mindset.

    What did the phrase mean at the time it was written to the writer and those who experienced these events.. Angels are unheard of until after the flood. This makes sense because God was speaking to men without the mediation of angels before the flood. There was no need for them before the flood.

    “Did Jude quote from 1 Enoch or not?” No he didn’t. He was inspired.

    “Finally, your straw man argument about Hosea 11:1 is another failed apologetic slight of hand. The phrase I am interested in is “bene ha-elohim”. That phrase is not used in Hosea 11:1.”

    This is just another example of the semantic games that Islam apologists like to play. If the exact phrase that I decree should appear does not appear in the text then my argument is true. Hosea puts more than a few nails in the islamic coffin so you have to go to desperate lengths to neutralize what it is saying.

    ” Since you acknowledge that Hosea 11:1 is talking about ISRAEL, then the author of the Gospel of Matthew was obviously mistaken when he misquoted Hosea 11:1 as referring to the MESSIAH:”

    Another straw man. Who said that Hosea 11 v 1 is not referring to Israel in it’s original context?

    An interesting discussion. Let’s carry on. Who knows it might end up being longer than the trinity thread.

    Why don’t you respond at the other thread which quotes a scholar defining the phrase son of God? I have started the ball rolling for you.

    Have a good day.

    Like

    • More personal opinions and no substantive evidence again Erasmus.

      You assume “redemptive history” because of your Christian mindset. Go figure. The authors of Genesis and Job did not believe in “redemptive history”.

      Why is it that early Jews and Christians interpreted the verse so differently from you? Why did even Christian scholars, who believed in “redemptive history” like you, still interpret the verse as referring to angels?

      Jude didn’t quote from Enoch? REALLY??? Let’s see the evidence again:

      Jude: “Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about them: “See, the Lord is coming with thousands upon thousands of his holy ones 15 to judge everyone, and to convict all of them of all the ungodly acts they have committed in their ungodliness, and of all the defiant words ungodly sinners have spoken against him.””

      Enoch: “And behold! He cometh with ten thousands of His holy ones To execute judgement upon all, And to destroy all the ungodly:

      And to convict all flesh Of all the works of their ungodliness which they have ungodly committed, And of all the hard things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him.”

      You must really be in denial or just plain delusional to deny that Jude quoted from Enoch.

      The Gospel of Matthew used Hosea as allegedly prophesying Jesus’ arrival from Egypt, when Hosea was actually referring to the exodus of the Israelites from Egypt.

      What thread are you referring to about the “son of God”? How does that change your failure to acknowledge the overwhelming scholarly evidence about the meaning of the phrase “bene ha-elohim” as angels? Distracting from your failures doesn’t change that they are failures.

      Like

  37. Faiz,

    This book Enoch was written after Jude to distort the message of Jude and fool people like you.

    According to Wikipedia there is no hebrew text:

    “It is wholly extant only in the Ge’ez language, with Aramaic fragments from the Dead Sea Scrolls and a few Greek and Latin fragments.”

    Why didn’t the Jews transmit this supposedly oral tradition in their own language?

    I’m not fooled by this con trick. You obviously are.

    you said: “You assume “redemptive history” because of your Christian mindset. Go figure. The authors of Genesis and Job did not believe in “redemptive history”.”

    The authors of Genesis didn’t see the future, which is recorded for us in the bible, and they didn’t have the prophecies that came later such as:

    “King James Bible

    Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered; and it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God.”

    The common thread running through Jude is rebellion against the authority of God or those who are invested with this authority, such as Moses:

    4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.

    Paul is saying that this has all happened before and those who rebelled did not escape the punishment of God. He gives examples of those who rebelled against God and how they were destroyed.

    “The Gospel of Matthew used Hosea as allegedly prophesying Jesus’ arrival from Egypt, when Hosea was actually referring to the exodus of the Israelites from Egypt.”

    We would believe that the Holy Spirit had Jesus in mind when he moved Hosea to write the original prophecy. Matthew confirms this being moved of the Holy Spirit to record it.

    Obviously as a Muslim you don’t believe this. I don’t expect you to.

    Like

    • Erasmus, your research is very poor. Don’t be lazy. According to the same Wikipedia source that you used, three fragments have been discovered at Qumran in Hebrew! We already know that Enoch was used by the Qumran community. So, regardless of your special pleading, the book of Enoch was written much earlier than Jude. Get over it. You’ve already conned yourself by denying facts due to your bias and presuppositions.

      The “authors of Genesis”? I thought you believed that Moses wrote Genesis? I thought it was your belief that God dictated the Torah to Moses?

      So now Hosea was actually referring to the Messiah? Is this the best you can do? Go in circles and assume things when it is convenient?

      Like

  38. “What thread are you referring to about the “son of God”?”

    If you do a search on this site using “son of god” you will find it.

    Like

    • Wow, before you were too lazy to do adequate research and now you are too lazy to just give me the link? You brought it up, so you might as well just give me a link. This blog has many threads where the phrase “son of God” would be mentioned.

      Like

  39. DC said:

    “Hi Faiz
    Are you saying that you have to believe in the writing of a book that you take a quote from?

    Does Jude say he is quoting from what was written or from what was prophesied?

    Can you explain Moses using the phrase ” he cometh with 10,000 of his saints” this is thousands of years before Jude and closer to the time of the actual prophecy?

    My point is that you can quote something out a book a written work that says something that is true, yet not believe in the work of that writer, or from oral tradition passed down.

    just like Paul used Greek poets. Can you quote the Roman source you mentioned?

    The book of Enoch says the Giants were 450 ft tall and Muhammad said Adam was 90 ft tall maybe there is some relationship when it comes myths and legends.”

    Wow DC, surely you realize how silly you sound! If the author of Jude was quoting Enoch, and a written version of Enoch does exist, why would we assume that he was quoting an “oral tradition”? The burden of proof is on you to prove this. Your assumptions don’t prove anything.

    As I said, Deuteronomy is no where close to being the same tradition. Here is what it says:

    “The Lord came from Sinai
    and dawned over them from Seir;
    he shone forth from Mount Paran.
    He came with[a] myriads of holy ones
    from the south, from his mountain slopes.”

    Here is what Jude wrote:

    “See, the Lord is coming with thousands upon thousands of his holy ones 15 to judge everyone, and to convict all of them of all the ungodly acts they have committed in their ungodliness, and of all the defiant words ungodly sinners have spoken against him.”

    You must really be desperate to argue that both these quotes are from the same tradition. One refers to the Israelites receiving the Law, while the other refers to a future judgment of mankind.

    Why would a supposedly “inspired” author quote from an apocryphal (and presumably “uninspired”) book?

    And by the way, the only myths here are the angel-human copulation story in your Bible as well the story of “giants”. I can see that you are now trying to deny that the “giants” were actually “giants”! LOL!! How tall do you think these “giants” were? Are your presuppositions again making you misquote your own book?

    Like

    • Hi Faiz
      You did not deal with the points I raised.

      Does Jude say he is quoting from what was written or from what was prophesied?

      From Matthew to 1st Peter you can see the phrase “it is written” the verse in Jude doesn’t say anything about a book.

      just like Paul used Greek poets. Can you quote the Roman source you mentioned?

      Can you explain Moses using the phrase ” he cometh with 10,000 of his saints” the point is in both texts the Lord is coming!

      Jud 1:14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,
      Jud 1:15 To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.

      Enoch 1:9
      And behold! He cometh with ten thousands of holy ones to execute judgement upon all, and to destroy [all] the ungodly: and to convict all flesh of all the works [of their ungodliness] which they have ungodly committed, and of all the hard things which ungodly sinners [have spoken] against Him.

      You said…

      Why would a supposedly “inspired” author quote from an apocryphal (and presumably “uninspired”) book?

      Well that’s the point I was making to you with the Apostle Paul quoting one of the Cretan prophets in Titus 1:12

      Paul didn’t believe the works of the prophet but he used something the prophet said that was true.

      You said…
      And by the way, the only myths here are the angel-human copulation story in your Bible as well the story of “giants”. I can see that you are now trying to deny that the “giants” were actually “giants”! LOL!! How tall do you think these “giants” were? Are your presuppositions again making you misquote your own book?

      Faiz be honest it is your prophet that said Adam was 90feet tall and also everyone who goes to paradise will be the same height.

      Enoch says 450 feet tall which is about the length of the ark.

      You myth is on you guys your authentic Hadith Muhammad claims this

      1. You need to honest and admit that the text does not say the union produced Giants as in extremely tall people.

      Gen 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.

      The tallest people mentioned in the bible are Goliath who was about 9 feet tall and another Og King of Bashan who was said to be around 11 feet tall maybe a bit more.

      Mat 24:37 But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
      Mat 24:38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark

      Jesus gives no indication of anything wrong in regards to the marriages in the days of Noah.

      Like

  40. Faiz,

    the link for the son of god thread:

    https://bloggingtheology.net/2016/09/08/the-truth-about-son-of-god-in-the-bible/

    If three tiny fragments of Enoch in Hebrew were found at Qumran that proves nothing. They cannot be dated with any accuracy. No one knows who originally wrote it. The book is a forgery written after the NT had already been written.

    “We already know that Enoch was used by the Qumran community.”

    I guess somebody used it for something but who and when? All speculation. The fragments could be as old as late first century AD or early 2nd century.

    You still haven’t provided a reason why the phrase used for sons of God in Job must always and only refer to angels wherever it is found in the bible. This is your presupposition and opinion.

    Jude is talking about men who crept in unawares and what attributes they displayed. They are compared to the angels who despised dominion, the rebelling israelites and the MEN of Sodom and Gomorrah.

    Your theory does not fit the passage.

    Like

    • Erasmus, you are getting really disingenuous and dishonest. Your bias is blatantly obvious. There is no debate among scholars about the age of the Dead Sea Scrolls, no matter how much you want to believe there is.

      You want a “reason” for why I believe “sons of God” must always and only refer to angels? I already mentioned it multiple times! The answer is right in front of you! Just read the Tanakh. Outside of Genesis 6, it is ALWAYS used for angels. That is a fact. The only presupposition is yours because you don’t want to believe that the Tanakh is independent on the NT.

      Jude was talking about the sins of the ANGELS and compared them to the sexual sins of the MEN of Sodom and Gamorrah. And he also quoted from a book that was well-known in his time that mentioned the sexual sins of the angels. The theory, which is not mine by the way but shared by most scholars, very neatly fits the passage. Your absurd theory of “redemptive history” fails and is based on you trying to force your own beliefs into the text. It’s like trying to forcefully put two pieces of a puzzle together even though they do not and will not fit.

      Like

  41. DC, I did deal with your points. Your points are based on special pleading and the burden of proof is on you to prove that the author of Jude was quoting some “oral tradition” rather than a written source. We know that the book of Enoch was well known. It was read by the Qumran community, so it preceded Jude by centuries. You need to prove with actual evidence (not your presumptive theories) that Jude’s almost word for word reproduction of 1 Enoch is not what it seems. I have no reason to simply accept your absurd theories just as I wouldn’t have any reason to believe that earth’s craters were caused by aliens rather than asteroids.

    I am shocked that you so easily misquote your own Bible. Deuteronomy 33 was not making a prophecy about the future but was referring to the revealing of the Law that had already occurred! Here is what it says:

    “And he said, The Lord came from Sinai, and rose up from Seir unto them; he shined forth from mount Paran, and he came with ten thousands of saints: from his right hand went a fiery law for them” (KJV).

    “The Lord came from Sinai and dawned over them from Seir; he shone forth from Mount Paran. He came with myriads of holy ones from the south, from his mountain slopes” (NIV).

    And once again, here is what Jude wrote:

    “And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,

    15 To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him” (KJV).

    “Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about them: “See, the Lord is coming with thousands upon thousands of his holy ones 15 to judge everyone, and to convict all of them of all the ungodly acts they have committed in their ungodliness, and of all the defiant words ungodly sinners have spoken against him” (NIV).

    One is a statement about the past. The other is a statement about the future. Are you really trying to make them one and the same?

    The author of Jude directly quoted from a well-known book. You don’t want it to be true that he trusted the Book of Enoch, which is a book you regard as “non-canonical”, but just because you hold that view does not mean that the author of Jude held such a view. Once again, we see your presuppositions dictating your biased view of the evidence.

    DC, be honest. It is your Bible that mentions “giants” on earth, not the Quran or Ahadith. As I already explained, the hadith about Adam is referring to his height in Paradise, not earth.

    You must be joking that Genesis 6 does not state that giants were the result of the sexual union of the “sons of God” and humans. It says so!

    “There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that>/b>, 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.”

    As for your special pleading about the actual size of these “giants”, you are again resorting to your silly presuppositions. The descriptions of the “Nephilim” does not leave anything to the imagination. They are described just as they are, really tall people. Take Numbers 13:33:

    “We saw the Nephilim there (the descendants of Anak come from the Nephilim). We seemed like grasshoppers in our own eyes, and we looked the same to them.”

    Do you honestly think that it would be appropriate to compare a normal sized individual to a 9 or 11 foot “giant” by referring to the former as “grasshoppers”?

    But let’s say that you are right about the actual height. Where is the evidence for these “giants” then? We have found millions of bones of dinosaurs from millions of years ago but I know of no human fossils of a 9-13 foot human? Where did these fossils go?

    Like

    • Hi Faiz

      This is how I know you are not interested in reading what someone else says

      1. Look at what you said.

      You said…

      I am shocked that you so easily misquote your own Bible. Deuteronomy 33 was not making a prophecy about the future but was referring to the revealing of the Law that had already occurred! Here is what it says:

      I’m not misquoting anything I asked you where did the phrase “The Lord cometh with 10,000 of his saints” come from?

      Is that phrase unique to the book of Enoch or Jude? If not where did Moses get it from?

      2. Secondly
      You taken absolutely no notice of the fact that Paul quote in Titus 1:12 from…

      1:12 One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, The Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies.

      Paul is quoting a poet called Epimenides here is a section of the poem.

      They fashioned a tomb for you, holy and high one.
      Cretans, always liars, evil beasts, idle bellies
      But you are not dead, you live and abide forever.
      For in you we live and move have our being.

      The point is just because you quote from a book does not mean you believe it is inspired!

      3. Giants in the earth.
      Can you show in scripture where God calls a fallen angel or demon if you like his sons?

      Can you show me from the text where women had children from fallen angels?

      Did Jesus mention an issue with the marriages in those days?

      Gen 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.

      From what I can see in the text the word giant does not mean what our 21st century mind thinks

      nephı̂yl nephil

      nef-eel’, nef-eel’
      From H5307; properly, a feller, that is, a bully or tyrant: – giant.

      4. Sons of God

      You originally asked for one example.

      You want to set the agenda for how we speak about God I’m sorry we will continue to use scripture

      Hos 1:10 Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered; and it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God

      Are the living God (el) and the living God (Elohim) two different Gods when speaking to Israel?

      5. Book of Jude.

      Jud 1:3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.
      Jud 1:4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.
      Jud 1:5 I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not.
      Jud 1:6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.
      Jud 1:7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

      The sin of the Jews was unbelief.

      The sin of the Angels was rebellion

      The sin of Sodom was sexual immorality.

      Verse 7 the cities around them, in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication.

      Please explain to me how married people Genesis 6 are committing fornication like Sodom?

      Like

  42. DC, can you tell me what source the author of Jude was using when he wrote the following:

    “But even the archangel Michael, when he was disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, did not himself dare to condemn him for slander but said, “The Lord rebuke you!””

    Was this another “oral tradition” or was this based on something more concrete?

    Like

    • “DC, can you tell me what source the author of Jude was using when he wrote the following:”

      The Holy Spirit.

      Like

  43. Faiz,

    “Outside of Genesis 6, it is ALWAYS used for angels. That is a fact.”

    That might be a fact but it is not an argument. You are still not giving any reason why this fact forces the phrase to mean angels in Genesis 6 . I want the reason please.

    “Jude was talking about the sins of the ANGELS and compared them to the sexual sins of the MEN of Sodom and Gamorrah.”

    No he wasn’t.

    ” 4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.”

    He is talking about the sexual sins of these men and comparing them to the sexual sins of Sodom and Gomorrah.

    5 I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not. 6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. 7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

    8 Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities

    THESE FILTHY DREAMERS DEFILE THE FLESH, despise dominion ( AS THE ANGELS ), and speak evil of dignities ( those who rebelled against Moses authority)

    These are not the angels. He is talking about men not angels.

    You are twisting and peverting the obvious and clear meaning of the passage to suit your agenda and bias.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Erasmus and DC against Faiz, the battle continues

  1. Anonymous says:

    Nebuchadnessar sees in the furnace of fire a temporary appearance of the 4th figure whom he called “like the son of God”. Such a figure just appears shortly but he causes a limited miracle that makes three pious Jews who walked in the ways of Jehovah get protected from the fire. Hence, both the term “son of God” and “like son of God” (an angel in human form) are terms for other than just a pious human who walks in way of Jehovah.
    Dan.3:25
    He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.

    Jesus himself confirms that originally the term “children of God” is for angels. And angels can rebel.
    As for humans, a unique term “children of God” shall be attached to them only after they get resurrected from the death. Certainly verses of Gen 6:2-4 do not refer to some resurrected men in the past, right?
    Lk 20:36
    Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.

    Moreover, from the content itself, the Tanach infers that Hosea’s prophesy also supports an idea that “Sons of God” in Gen 6:2-4 were the rebellious angels of the past, not to pious humans whatsoever.
    Hos 1:10 is a prophesy. It doesn’t refer to the past. Hosea doesn’t use the specific words “sons of the living God” to refer to the time of Genesis, but rather it is a prophesy for the future. Hosea assures how the resurrected Jews shall be included alongside the resurrected Gentiles by God to be “children of God”, that is being equal to angel of heaven. As consistent prophesy, Hosea says something as same as Jesus’s words in Luke 20:36.
    Hence, Hosea 1:10 can’t be used in retrograde sense to argue or identify what the past “sons of God” of Gen 6:2-4 are.
    Hos 1:10
    Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered; and it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s