The word of God is not a secret code that needs unlocked.

Yes, it is. You were trying to make the argument that a later realization applies to an earlier observation. That is a fallacious anachromism.

No, it does not. It says, "sons of God"; bene Elohim. Those Hebrew words are not the words for 'angels'.

No, he is not.

You're now making a circular argument... also fallacious.

Simply put, we don't need to know. Whether it was Jesus Himself or merely an angel is irrelevant, because the angel would still be God's representative. Jesus prevented the men from being harmed.

Luke 1:

41 And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost: 42 And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. 43 And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? 44 For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy.

How does a body without a soul experience joy?

How does a body without a soul start jumping in the mother's womb when she just was in a car accident that scared her terribly?
Because the fetus is hooked up to the mother's nervous and hormonal system.
Could the fetus see the accident? No.
Could the fetus even know what a car is? No.
How could it know while hidden inside a womb there was something to fear?
https://rmccares.org/2020/08/06/when-i-feel-sad-while-pregnant-does-my-baby-feel-sad/

With Elisabeth's experience? The Greek reveals an important factor.
It says, in effect, that the babe leaped in the sphere of the mother's joy.
Just like the negative reaction of the mother being in a car accident effected the movement of the fetus.
That is what the Greek indicates.

The fetus leaping revealed how great the magnitude of her joy was at that moment.

Sorry... I know how this can look to some. But, I'm going to stick with the original language meaning.

Take recently born baby.

The mother puts the baby on a blanket on a lawn next to her while she enjoys a picnic basket.
The baby is calm and enjoying the feeling of fresh air upon its face,

Then.... at a moment unexpected, a snake begins working their way.
The mother sees it and her heart starts beating a mile a second...
She grabs up her baby and quickly moves herself out of harms way.

Until the mother grabbed the baby it was happy and content.
No reaction until the mom made her move.

Now.... back in time.
The mother was still pregnant and decided to have a picnic basket lunch.
The sun was nice and she was enjoying her sandwich.
Then.... at a moment unexpected, a snake starts working her way.
She sees it, and her heart begins pounding in her chest.

She quickly moves herself out of harms way.
She then notices the fetus jumping around in her womb.

Why?

The baby in the womb was jumping around because the mother had a sudden surge of adrenalin
with survival hormones that were launched into her blood stream. That surge of hormones effected
the fetus and it began jumping around. But, the baby had no idea a snake causing it.

But? If that baby was born, and outside on a picnic blanket? It would have felt no fear of a snake
coming its way. Just like a baby will put bad things in its mouth being oblivious, having not yet learned
what good and evil are....

The fetus leaped in her womb because of the powerful joy Elizabeth was experiencing.
Leaping caused by the hormonal interaction between a mother and her fetus.

This is true what you're saying about the emotional connection between mother and child, but the child is still a person (with soul and spirit). If a fetus is not a person, then it is not a child.
The "sphere" you are referring to is in the sense of a "hollow" or "cavity". The word κοιλια is translated 'belly' in Matthew 12:40; 15:17; Mark 7:19; Luke 15:16 and 'womb' in Matthew 19:12; Luke 1:15, 41, 42. The babe didn't leap "in the sphere" of the mother's joy, but he leaped for joy "in the sphere" (womb) of his mother. There's no grammatical connection of the womb and Elizabeth's joy.
Matthew 1:20
"But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost."
Luke 2:21
And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, his name was called JESUS, which was so named of the angel before he was conceived in the womb.
"that which" is referring to the fetus, but that's only the flesh / body, which is created by the mother. The Holy Ghost's part MUST be something other than / more than the body. Luke says "he" was conceived in the womb. Is this a reference to a fetus (created by Mary), or the person of the Son of God?

Also wouldn't it be foolish to put the following in the Word of God if the unborn children didn't have life yet, so as to not be able to do good or evil?
Romans 9:11
( For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth; )
They may have been unborn children, but they were still children.

KJV translated Psalm 22:10



Note..
The psalmist was stating that God was his God "from the womb."
Not, his God, inside the womb.
He had to be alive first to have God be his God!


The Hebrew word would be different if he thought God was his God inside the womb.

The King James had no program to follow as we now find with the abortion controversy.
So the KJV translators translated it literally as stated in the Hebrew.
Many modern translators often shy away, and translate it "in the womb"

God purposed to have it worded in the Hebrew exactly one way.

God wanted man to know that the parents only can create a body.
But it is only God who created the SOUL.
The parents do not own that life. God does.
The ancients who spoke Hebrew understood.

The body will die, but it's the soul which receives eternal life.
The soul is the life God saved!

The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray
as soon as they be born, speaking lies." Psalm 58:3


The same phenomena appears in the Greek NT.
For the Greek term - "ek kolia," also means, 'from the womb.'

The Word of God remains consistent from OT to the NT.

Grace and truth.....

That meant the body of Jesus was without a sin nature.

The sin nature resides in our flesh.
Adam passed down the sin nature defect to all via his sperm.
The woman's ovum does not pass down the sin nature.

That is why Genesis 3:15 says it will be the "seed of the woman" that will bring forth the Messiah to crush Satan's head!

For the ancients, the offspring referred to the child as being the seed of the father.
In reference to Jesus? Not so, as seen in Genesis 3:15!

And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed;
it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

No man's seed mentioned for Jesus father! Why?


Eve was the first sinner.
But, her ovum did not cause sin to enter the world, to pass down the sin nature.
Adam's sperm/seed was what caused the sin nature to enter all of humanity!
Adam's sperm was the cause. And all males still share this same attribute.

That is why Jesus could have no human father!

It was Mary's ovum that was used of God to make him true humanity. The Holy Spirit had to fertilize her womb.
For the Holy Spirit provided perfect genetic material needed as to fertilize Mary's ovum.
Jesus body was born as Adam's body had been created. Sinless.
In that way, Jesus would have a body free from the fallen sin nature.


Once his body was outside of Mary's womb (ek kolia) the Soul of Jehovah entered to make Himself become as a man...
A sinless man. A lamb without spot or blemish, for the atonement of all mankind.

grace and peace ...............

I understand about Jesus getting his body from His mother and His nature from The Father, and that's why I added Luke 2:21 which references His conception in the womb -- the Person of Jesus.

The conception concerned his human body only.

The soul that lived as a man in that body had no conception.
For his soul was eternally existing

Hebrews 10:5 tells us....

Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said:

“Sacrifice and offering you did not desire,
but a body you prepared for me."

If you look closely at Job 1:6, it provides strong evidence that the "sons of God" are indeed angels. The verse says:


In this passage, the "sons of God" are clearly in the heavenly realm, appearing before God alongside Satan. This setting, in the presence of God, strongly suggests that these "sons of God" are not human beings but heavenly beings—angels. Humans, after all, don't have direct access to the heavenly courts like this.

Furthermore, consider again Job 38:7, which refers to the creation of the world:

"When the morning stars sang together,
and all the sons of God shouted for joy?" (Job 38:7).

Here, the "sons of God" are present at the very moment of creation, rejoicing over God's work. This could only refer to beings who existed before humanity was even created—again, pointing directly to angels, who are often referred to as "morning stars" and heavenly beings in other parts of Scripture.

Yes he is. King Nebuchadnezzar is referring to the fact that this is an angel. If you or others here actually read the chapter in context, you would know that this is the case.

Here is the quote that should make you and others here feel silly:

Daniel 3:28 (KJV)


Modern Translation also state this truth, as well.


…

Genez, the Holy Spirit in John caused him to jump for joy inside the womb at the approaching Christ. The Bible doesn't say that Elizabeth leaped with joy, but that John did.

"For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb."

And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost:

I’m not going to bother debating the issue with you. Instead, I encourage you to read Dr. Michael Heiser’s ‘The Unseen Realm’. When you have done so, feel free to respond further.

The key is, you DO NEED TO REALLY STUDY THE BIBLE....
I know so many Christians who have accepted Christ... only to drift away into a secular lifestyle. I know, because I was one of them.
The word did not take a deep root. They need to reinforce this.. YOU NEEED to study and Yes, you need to go to Church.
Because after I was saved, I thought I was good to go. I went to Church sometimes... I prayed, sometimes but I never read the bible.
In fact, I didn't even own a bible for years.

I was 17 at the time.

whats difference KJ 2000 vs NKJV

We need to get it straight, please.....

Let's go and see what was written.




Did the fetus hear Mary's voice while in the womb?
How? Mary's eardrums were connected to the fetus?

Now, if it said something different, like this?

Elizabeth said....


That would prove what you are saying.

But it says, as soon as Elizabeth HEARD the voice of Mary.
For it was Mary's reaction first!

That translates into meaning Elizabeth's excitement caused a reaction in the fetus!
Just like a woman escaping a near death accident would feel a fetus leaping as a result
of the mother's intense emotional reaction.

Can we make sense, please?

God wants us to figure these truths out.
Not to allow emotion rule our thinking any longer.

grace and peace ................

Again, I understand all of this, and agree. The point is, Luke 2:21 says ". . . before he was conceived in the womb." If the body of Jesus was just a body before He was born (without soul or spirit), then you cannot say that He was 'in the womb', but that His body was in the womb. But Luke 2:21 says "he was . . . in the womb."

Luke 2:21 says the following...

On the eighth day, when it was time to circumcise the child, he was named Jesus, the name the angel had given him before he was conceived.

The soul of Jesus preexisted the incarnation. His soul was the soul of the Lord God of Israel.
Keep in mind, Jesus made it clear that God is 'spirit,' not soul.

But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father
in spirit and truth, for such the Father seeks to worship him. God is spirit, and those
who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.” John 4:23-24


The Lord God of Israel was being two natures in union (Deity and Soul) long before the Incarnation took place!

And they began to remove the foreign gods from their midst and to serve Jehovah,
so that his soul became impatient because of the trouble of Israel. Jdges 10:16


Jehovah himself examines the righteous one as well as the wicked one,
and anyone loving violence, his soul certainly hates." Ps 11:5



“Bring no more futile sacrifices; Incense is an abomination to Me. The New Moons,
the Sabbaths, and the calling of assemblies— I cannot endure iniquity and the sacred
meeting. Your New Moons and your appointed feasts My soul hates; They are a trouble
to Me, I am weary of bearing them. Isa 1:13-14


But my righteous one will live by reason of faith, and, if he shrinks back, my soul has no
pleasure in him." Heb 10:38

And...

'You will eat the old supply and clear out the old because of the new. Moreover, I will make
My dwelling among you, and My soul will not reject you.' I will also walk among you and be
your God, and you shall be My people." Lev 26:10-12

God is NOT soul!

That soul we see throughout the Torah was the very soul that entered the body provided by means of the ovum of Mary (Gen 3:15)

This is important....

The chapter before that, Mary is told by Gabriel what to name Jesus after he was born.

Luke 1:31 You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you are to call him Jesus.

From my understanding on Heisler’s view here, he believes that the “sons of God” are divine beings as a part of some kind of divine council mentioned in Genesis 1 (who govern things in the universe — although they do not create things in our reality like God has done). Yet, Heisler believes that the word “angel“ and it morphological variations refer to a job title instead of a class of beings that is different from the “sons of God.” The problem with this view is that King Nebuchadnezzar referred to this fourth being in the fire as both a “son of God” and an “angel” according to Daniel 3 (in the KJV). Even the Hebrew words are different here and would be a reference to the same being. So King Nebuchadnezzar simply thought this was an angel, when in reality we know it to be Jesus Christ. Besides, it is highly unlikely Nebuchadnezzar was even aware of the overly complex differences in angelogy that Heisler is proposing here. The king was not a Hebrew believer by any means to know such detailed nuances that are not so straight forward. Again, your interpetation here is forced and doesn’t make any sense in light of what we read in Daniel 3. The king thought this was an angel and used two terms to refer to angels (When in reality the reader who is in the know, would understand this to be Jesus Christ). Your overcomplicating things that are plainly written and does not fit the context. If your interpretation was true, there would have been a fifth being in the fire referred to by another name. So again, this is a huge fail on your part here to convince me or other readers here of what your selling.

….

The NKJV is a transition Trojan horse Bible. It is the first popular Modern Bible that attempts to sway KJV believers to switch to a Critical Text Modern bible. It has used stealth and deceptive tactics and marketing to pull this off. They make the reader believe the NKJV is based on the same underlying texts as the KJV precisely, but this is not the case. There are a small number of TR readings that are not present in the NKJV. The Hebrew text is also different, as well. Translation choices are different at times, too. These favor the Critical Text Bibles, and not the KJV. Then there are the doubt-producing footnotes in the NKJV that point to the Critical Text and not the TR. So again, the NKJV is trying to transition you subtly to favor all the Modern Bibles.

The KJ 2000 is more of an unknown KJV update created by one man. He changes things like "dragons" (KJV) to "jackals" among other problems. Do jackals live in wells? Well, according to KJ 2000 they do. However, the KJ 2000 is a bit of a nothing burger or obscure translation that does not have that great of a following. The NKJV is a lot more popular. Hence, why it is more of a concern if you believe the Textus Receptus Greek New Testament and the KJV are the purest forms of God's Word today that we possess currently. Most today are liberal with God's Word and they have no problem in following a shapeshifter Critical Text and or conflicting Modern Bibles that keep changing every few years. Most are not really concerned with having the absolute truth or the precise words of God. This fits perfectly with the fact that we are living in the last days.


....