Question in story of noah.

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Heaven_Bound said:
And we can all agree that it could mean a rhino. But on 2 occasions, Unicorn is used to exemplify the Power of God. And that makes no sense to say God's power is equal to a rhino when in Job we have the Behemoth and Leviathan
Click to expand...
Check the timing of each. Unicorns (rhinoceros, uni cornis) were common in the land and were a strong untamed animal, but Behemoth and Leviathan not so much since Job's day.
 
 
It is my belief that while real, these things are Satanic in origin. It is my experience that at the name of Jesus, they flee.
 
Heaven_Bound said:
I said it is still hidden.
Click to expand...
The copy that Moses was asked to make is still hidden. Correct. No man has seen since the days of Jeremiah.

Heaven_Bound said:
Although, Ron White claimed to find it located underneath where Christ was Crucified. But whether that is fact or not I don't know.
Click to expand...
There is no evidence Ron Wyatt saw anything of the copy of the ark that Moses was asked to make.

Even the location, and reasoning given by Ron Wyatt, is suspect and incorrect. He claims that blood from Calvary (Jesus) needed to flow down unto the ark below (supposedly by Ron's account), but why? No blood on the day of Passover (spring) when Christ was crucified, would be placed upon the ark (which should have been in the most holy place of the temple). Only a high priest could enter to see the ark, and that only in the Day of Atonement (fall). Christ was not made high priest until 50 days later at Pentecost, Psalms 133:1-3; Revelation 5:6; Acts 2:1-3,33, etc.

Ron Wyatt while having some interesting things about Mt Sinai, cannot be trusted on the ark.

I have seen all his materials and own them still. It's a very mixed bag.
 
Magenta said:
Despite being clearly well-known during the development of the Hebrew Bible canon, 1 Enoch was excluded from both the Tanakh’s formal canon and the Septuagint’s typical canon, and thus from the Deuterocanon’s writings. <- search engine find.
Click to expand...

The Septuagint were the scrolls that existed in the times of Jesus in which he read from and just as credible or moreso than the Masorectic texts that every english version uses today that was developed around 900 AD. Some versions do mention it in the footnotes
 
CS1 said:
good question,

The Book of Beginnings (Genesis)also is the beginning of the languages of man, NOT GOD.

IF we look at the progression of the word of God through the bible Sons of God as a normative speak of men more than angels, in the New Testament I am a son of God as there are many of us who are because of Christ.


Also, the fall of man was relatively new from the context of Genesis. we see many spiritual things pertaining to man and God that are not fully explained example Enoch walked with God and was no more, for God took him? In Hebrew let's see what God did from the word took (lāqaḥ )?

  1. (Qal)
    1. to take, take in the hand
    2. to take and carry along
    3. to take from, take out of, take, carry away, take away
    4. to take to or for a person, procure, get, take possession of, select, choose, take in marriage, receive, accept
    5. to take up or upon, put upon
    6. to fetch
    7. to take, lead, conduct
    8. to take, capture, seize
    9. to take, carry off
    10. to take (vengeance)

there are many ways this word TOOK can go YET we must use from the context the word that best fits

# 10 can't be God took Vengeance out on Enoch why? Because the word Walked with GOD.

which could mean :


to go, walk, come

  1. (Qal)
    1. to go, walk, come, depart, proceed, move, go away
    2. to die, live, manner of life (fig.)
Adam walked with God, Enoch, walked with God Noah walked with God Abraham walked with God
they were all Sons of God as they were know as

bēn 'ĕlōhîm =
  1. sons (as characterisation, i.e. sons of injustice [for un- righteous men] or sons of God [for angels]


Genesis chapter 6 actually is speaking about men, not angels because the chapter is about men, not angels.

the daughters of men speak to those who are not known as the elect. Sons of God speak of those who walk with GOD NOT IN SIN.

BUT were now doing so.
Click to expand...
You don't seem to understand one thing. People who believe in Jesus are the adopted son of God.
Who can be called the sons of God before Jesus was born ?
 
soberxp said:
You don't seem to understand one thing. People who believe in Jesus are the adopted son of God.
Who can be called the sons of God before Jesus was born ?
Click to expand...
This is a very good point. The only "sons of God" mentioned in scripture are those who were direct creations of God. So Adam (direct creation of God), and the angels (direct creations of God). In the New Testament, Christians are called sons of God, as we are born again by God's Holy Spirit (we are new - direct - creations). The sons of men therefore, are not sons of God, as evidenced in scripture.
 
  • Like
Reactions: John146
soberxp said:
You don't seem to understand one thing. People who believe in Jesus are the adopted son of God.
Who can be called the sons of God before Jesus was born ?
Click to expand...

"Before Abraham was I AM"
 
Omegatime said:
The Septuagint were the scrolls that existed in the times of Jesus in which he read from and just as credible or moreso than the Masorectic texts that every english version uses today that was developed around 900 AD. Some versions do mention it in the footnotes
Click to expand...
That was about the book of Enoch not being considered inspired.
 
Moses_Young said:
This is a very good point. The only "sons of God" mentioned in scripture are those who were direct creations of God. So Adam (direct creation of God), and the angels (direct creations of God). In the New Testament, Christians are called sons of God, as we are born again by God's Holy Spirit (we are new - direct - creations). The sons of men therefore, are not sons of God, as evidenced in scripture.
Click to expand...

If you can receive it:

Eve was the first “son of God, son of man” as she was both fashioned by God directly but taken from the side of Adam.

The priestly order of “sons of God” vested in Melchizedek in the OT. Did you ever wonder how there could be priests in the OT before the Law made a provision for them? The sons of God are the “priests” written about before the Law was given at Sinai. The patriarch of the first priestly order was Adam, the son of God. He administrated what God was doing in the earth. Instruction was given to him directly by his Father, God. How do you think Adam knew how to be a father to his own children… by his own experience with God.

The first priestly order was father and son, and father and son, and father and son… understanding passed down through generations. The whole of Israel tithed to this order, when Abraham gave a tenth to Melchizedek, to seal the preeminence of the administration of the “Prince of Peace” (for he was king and priest of Salem), a name given only to God.

And, when Elijah ascended, Elisha, faithful in his pursuit of his mantle, shouted My father (Elijah)! My father (God)! at the appearing of the Lord and received his portion of grace and Elijah’s: a double portion. The return of this administration was heralded by John the Baptist. THE Son of God appeared, doing only what He sees His Father doing (like Adam before the fall) and, before His ascension, He sends out His sons (the disciples) in the same manner in which His Father sent Him. In this, the first priestly order was restored: sons who walk with God, who raise sons who walk with God, and so on. These sons do not have to be DNA children. They are sons by the spirit who do what they see their fathers doing, like Elisha and Elijah, like the disciples and Jesus, like Timothy and Paul, etc.
 
I have seen many teachings on gen 6 and have my own theories on this. If I may share them.

Could it be that we are seeing a mass possession and not a spiritual to flesh transformation?
That giants could refer to greatness in popularity vrs size as the scriptures point out men of renowned.
Teaching the children as they were a parent to them rebellion and evil.
Connecting the dots....in the book of job satan brings up the fact that God has a hedge around job for protection.
Could it be that the Lord did not place this hedge around the people of noah's day untill grace and faith were found? As the story of noah through the preaching of enoch the Lord found grace and noah obeyed the Lord in faith in building the ark? Establishing by grace we are saved and through faith we enter in.

Paul brings up a familiar story of seducing spirits creeping into the church. I found it interesting he used the word seducing as we see these angles were also seducing woman back in noah's day.

Would like some thoughts and correction on this shakey theory.

Was the population of noah guided by a evil form of government ? Which was formed by these fallen abominations. For it says that God repented for ever making man but then grace and faith were born.
 
Magenta said:
Hello Mister Soandso, lovely to see you! And nice to know that somebody can follow the conversation ;):cool::giggle:
Click to expand...

lol, to me it's interesting to read along with these threads like this. The one thing that always stands out in them is that rarely ever does anyone discuss the individual chapter contents of 1Enoch but it's only argued over giants,the books being inspired or not ect. To me it is an example of how some groups saw things shortly before Jesus,(by the Jews) with some in support and others not. I suppose that if at any time the book is broken down and actually examined there would then be an multitude of questions that would arise for instance the Parthians in chapter 56 I wonder how many realize when they existed(247bc-224ad)? Another is chapter 54-55 describing the destruction of the earth by water/flood and then the sign set in heaven(the rainbow) which can only mean the author lived after the flood(Noah) and during the time-frame the Parthian empire existed. http://wesley.nnu.edu/index.php?id=2126
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back