Question in story of noah.

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

The main thing always seems to be whether or not angels had sex with women... who then bore children

Out of this comes the false notion that this was the reason God flooded the earth, among other things.

The fact that Enoch is not an inspired work means it should not be used to add to/corroborate Scripture as if it were on the same footing. That Jesus and others quoted Enoch does not validate the book or even that doing so means the book was already written, since oral traditions were in place before anything was ever written down. Then we get people saying saying that if they misunderstand something, Scripture writers lied to them! I fear for such people's faith.

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.

That Jesus and others quoted Enoch

Oh my. The subject was the book of Enoch.

What is theright interpertation of son of gods and daughter of men???

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.

Ok, I am not hear to make you see or agree for me it is settled

[...continued]

Daniel 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.
Matthew 4:3 And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread.
Matthew 4:6 And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.
Matthew 8:29 And, behold, they cried out, saying, What have we to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God? art thou come hither to torment us before the time?
Matthew 14:33 Then they that were in the ship came and worshipped him, saying, Of a truth thou art the Son of God.
Matthew 26:63 But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God.
Matthew 27:40 And saying, Thou that destroyest the temple, and buildest it in three days, save thyself. If thou be the Son of God, come down from the cross.
Matthew 27:43 He trusted in God; let him deliver him now, if he will have him: for he said, I am the Son of God.
Matthew 27:54 Now when the centurion, and they that were with him, watching Jesus, saw the earthquake, and those things that were done, they feared greatly, saying, Truly this was the Son of God.
Mark 1:1 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God;
Mark 3:11 And unclean spirits, when they saw him, fell down before him, and cried, saying, Thou art the Son of God.
Mark 15:39 And when the centurion, which stood over against him, saw that he so cried out, and gave up the ghost, he said, Truly this man was the Son of God.
Luke 1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
Luke 3:38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.
Luke 4:3 And the devil said unto him, If thou be the Son of God, command this stone that it be made bread.
Luke 4:9 And he brought him to Jerusalem, and set him on a pinnacle of the temple, and said unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down from hence:
Luke 4:41 And devils also came out of many, crying out, and saying, Thou art Christ the Son of God. And he rebuking them suffered them not to speak: for they knew that he was Christ.
Luke 8:28 When he saw Jesus, he cried out, and fell down before him, and with a loud voice said, What have I to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God most high? I beseech thee, torment me not.
Luke 22:70 Then said they all, Art thou then the Son of God? And he said unto them, Ye say that I am.
John 1:34 And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God.
John 1:49 Nathanael answered and saith unto him, Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; thou art the King of Israel.
John 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
John 5:25 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.
John 9:35 Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when he had found him, he said unto him, Dost thou believe on the Son of God?
John 10:36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?
John 11:4 When Jesus heard that, he said, This sickness is not unto death, but for the glory of God, that the Son of God might be glorified thereby.
John 11:27 She saith unto him, Yea, Lord: I believe that thou art the Christ, the Son of God, which should come into the world.
John 19:7 The Jews answered him, We have a law, and by our law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God.
John 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.
Acts 8:37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
Acts 9:20 And straightway he preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God.
Romans 1:4 And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:
2 Corinthians 1:19 For the Son of God, Jesus Christ, who was preached among you by us, even by me and Silvanus and Timotheus, was not yea and nay, but in him was yea.
Galatians 2:20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.
Ephesians 4:13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:
Hebrews 4:14 Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession.
Hebrews 6:6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.
Hebrews 7:3 Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.
Hebrews 10:29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?
1 John 3:8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.
1 John 4:15 Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God.
1 John 5:5 Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?
1 John 5:10 He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.
1 John 5:12 He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.
1 John 5:13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.
1 John 5:20 And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.
Revelation 2:18 And unto the angel of the church in Thyatira write; These things saith the Son of God, who hath his eyes like unto a flame of fire, and his feet are like fine brass;

Have you seen the answer to your position here? - https://www.baptistboard.com/thread...eate-the-scripture-kjb-declares-not-so.93713/

Then I will leave evidence for those not settled and not beyond correction.






https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=C1mi_RcSLQ8

The so called Septuagint (LXX) doesn't actually exist. It's actually Sinaiticus (& Vaticanus) from Origen's Hexapla and was never 300 BC, but rather hundreds AD passing itself off based on a discredited myth (Letter of Aristeas).

'Taint no such thing as "the Septuagint". What you are actually referring to is Origen's Hexapla (Catholic).

The so called "Septuagint", really being "septuaginta (plural, with differing translations)" of Origen's Hexapla, Theodotion (6th column), Aquila of Sinope, & Symmachus and really from the sources Vaticanus and Sinaiticus (both of which are not anywhere near 4th C.).

The Septuagint [LXX] as we presently know it, appears first in the writings of Origen [Hexapla] at near the end of the 2nd century AD, and the mention by the so-called "Letter of Aristeas", based on an unfounded and mostly discredited "legend", is seriously problematic.

"... Most of these fables focus on an infamous “book” 14 called the “Letter of Aristeas” 15 (hereafter called the Letter) and the alleged claims of the Letter’s documentation by authors who wrote before the first coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and in the first few centuries following His first sojourn on earth. 16 The only extant Letter is dated from the eleventh century. In addition, there is no pre-Christian Greek translation of the He-brew Old Testament text, which the Letter alleges, that has been found, in-cluding the texts among the Dead Sea Scrolls. ..." - http://www.theoldpathspublications.com/Downloads/Free/The Septuagint ebook.pdf

"... the story of Aristeas appears comparatively rational. Yet it has long been recognized that much of it is unhistorical, in particular the professed date and nationality of the writer. Its claims to authenticity were demolished by Dr. Hody two centuries ago (De bibliorum textibus originalibus, Oxon., 1705) ..." - The Septuagint, by H. St. J. Thackeray

De bibliorum textibus originalibus - Humfredi Hodii linguae graecae professoris regii et Archidiaconi Oxon. De bibliorum textibus originalibus, versionibus graecis, & latina vulgata libri 4.. : Humphrey Hody : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Other sources, identifying the same - The Septuagint

Was the Septuagint the Bible of Christ and the Apostles?

"... Roman Catholics use the idea that Christ quoted the Septuagint to justly include the Apocrypha in their Bibles. ... Since no Hebrew Old Testament ever included the books of the Apocrypha, the Septuagint is the only source the Catholics have for justifying their canon. Many Reformers and Lutherans wrote at great length refuting the validity of the Septuagint. ..." - http://www.wcbible.org/documents/septuagint.pdf

"... [Page 46] Proponents of the invisible LXX will try to claim that Origen didn't translate the Hebrew into Greek, but only copied the LXX into the second column of his Hexapla. Can this argument be correct? No. If it were, then that would mean that those astute 72 Jewish scholars added the Apocryphal books to their work before they were ever written. (!) Or else, Origen took the liberty to add these spurious writings to God's Holy Word (Rev. 22:18). ...

... Is there ANY Greek manuscript of the Old Testament written BEFORE the time of Christ? Yes. There is one minute scrap dated at 150 BC, the Ryland's Papyrus, #458. It contains Deuteronomy chapters 23-28. No more. No less. If fact, it may be the existence of this fragment that led Eucebius and Philo to assume that the entire Pentatuech had been translated by some scribe in an effort to interest Gentiles in the history of the Jews. ... [page 46]

... [Page 47] If there was an Aristeas, he was faced with two insurmountable problems.

First, how did he ever locate the twelve tribes in order to pick his six representative scholars from each. Having been thoroughly scattered by their many defeats and captivities, the tribal lines of the 12 tribes had long since dissolved into virtual non-existence. It was impossible for anyone to distinctly identify the 12 individual tribes.

Secondly, if the 12 tribes had been identified, they would not have undertaken such a translation for two compelling reasons.

(1) Every Jew knew that the official caretaker of Scripture was the tribe of Levi as evidenced in Deuteronomy 17:18, 31:25,26 and Malachi 2:7. Thus, NO Jew of any of the eleven other tribes would dare to join such a forbidden enterprise. ..." - The Answer Book, By Sam Gipp, Page 46-47, selected portions, emphasis [bold] in original.

See also The Mythological Septuagint - https://ia801900.us.archive.org/13/items/peter-s-ruckman-the-mythological-septuagint/Peter S Ruckman - The Mythological Septuagint.pdf

See also Handbook of Manuscript Evidence, "Chapter 4, the Mythological LXX" - https://ia801508.us.archive.org/8/i...istians-handbook-of-manuscript-evidence/Peter S Ruckman - The Christian's Handbook of Manuscript Evidence.pdf

1 Jones, The Septuagint: A Critical Analysis, op. cit., pp. 10–54. The reader should, in all fairness, be apprised of the fact that very nearly all references in the literature which allude to the Septuagint in fact pertain to Origen's 5th column. That is, the real LXX from all citation evidence as to N.T. references – indeed, for all practical purposes – the Septuagint that we actually "see" and "use" is found to actually be only two manuscripts, Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus a. This is especially true of Vaticanus. Although this fact is difficult to ferret out from among the vast amount of literature on the subject, it may be verified by numerous sources. Among them, the reader is directed to page 1259 in The New Bible Dictionary op. cit., (Texts-Versions) where D.W. Gooding admits this when he relates that the LXX of Jer.38:40 (Jer.31:40 in the MT) as shown in figure 214 has been taken from the Codex Sinaiticus. Thomas Hartwell Horne is even more direct in An Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures, 9th ed., Vol. II, (London, Eng.: Spottiswoode and Shaw, 1846), fn. 1. p. 282 and fn. 3 p. 288. It has been established that both were produced from Origen's 5th column. Thus, the Septuagint which we actually utilize in practical outworking, the LXX which is cited almost ninety percent of the time, is actually the LXX that was written more than 250 years after the completion of the New Testament canon – and by a "Catholicized Jehovah's Witness" at that! Moreover, it must be seen that the testimony of these two corrupted manuscripts is almost solely responsible for the errors being foisted upon the Holy Scriptures in both Testaments by modern critics! - Footnote 1, Which Version?, by Floyd Nolen Jones, 20th edition page 129 [PDF] - https://ia601901.us.archive.org/9/items/floyd-nolen-jones-which-version-is-the-bible/Floyd Nolen Jones - Which Version Is The Bible.pdf

This is so elementary.

The church in the U.S., by and large, has lost the language of the Kingdom. Most pews are filled with orphans who want "Just Me and Jesus" to be the order of the House of God.

I'm not aware that scripture refers to Eve as a "son of God". Please correct me, if this is wrong.

Again, can you point me the scripture that refers to Melchizedek as one of a priestly order of the "sons of God"? I think scripture is deliberately vague on Melchizedek, because, as you alude to, he was representing God Himself (being the one Abraham tithed to). The phrase "sons of God", to my understanding, is never used, except to describe those whom God directly created (e.g. Adam, the angels, and all those born again of the Holy Spirit).

I suspect the reasoning behind the general "sensationalizing" of scripture comes from a form of putting other gods before Him. It is as if the spiral of man into hedonism isn't horrific enough to warrant a catastrophic flood (hence the suggestion that it is not so bad after all...) so angels must be brought into the proverbial orgy. I think it is this line same of thinking that birth the modern day rapture theory, i.e. God's wrath cannot be so terrible unless Christians are first beamed up because not even His Presence can save anyone (not even them) from it?

Youtube videos are not something I look to for my theological understanding of the word of God.

That is an incorrect view of what those videos are about. Those videos show the documented evidence of the false history of the so called septuagint. They are not an attempt at trying to get you a "theological understanding of the word of God".

I disagree with their presupposition.

What is theright interpertation of son of gods and daughter of men???