Search results

You're welcome to your opinion, even it if leaves large gaps in your theory.

If we apply your (very flawed) reasoning, then human children all "want to have sex". You really ought to rethink that one! Nowhere in Scripture are we told that God does not "allow" marriage among angels. It just tells us that the angels in heaven don't marry. Don't misrepresent the words of...

Regarding nephilim, both commentaries look to me like ignorant speculation, not deep insight. Their words are not authoritative in the least. As for "giant" and "Nephilim", I take them to be different concepts. Later books in the OT clearly discuss giants (unusually large 'humans') without...

So explain the origin of Greek and Roman (and other pagan) mythologies within your worldview. I'll make popcorn.

"My" thoughts must credit the late Dr. Michael Heiser who in turn credits a large number of scholars who did the original research. Deuteronomy 32:8 tells us this: When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people...

I guess you don't understand what "don't bother using adjectives" means. Your opinions are irrelevant. "Deviant from the spirit of scripture" is about the silliest and weakest defense I've seen all week. You think your haughty language is going to leave us trembling in fear as we repent of our...

Agreed. "Bene Elohim" literally means "sons of God". It does not mean "angels" (messengers). Let's look at a couple of passages to unpack this further: Deuteronomy 32:7-8 Remember the days of old; consider the generations long past. Ask your father and he will tell you, your elders, and they...

There is nothing "silly and perverse" about an explanation that accounts for ALL the relevant information and is surprisingly consistent with Scripture. I'd say Occam's Razor points toward the "myth" interpretation. What, ultimately, is your complaint with this? Don't bother with adjectives...

Look at it this way: the pagan mythologies had their origins somewhere. Why would an explanation that accounts for both biblical information and myths not be considered? The ‘myth’ view accounts for far more than Genesis 6.

As was appropriate in light of your post.

Boom! Smackdown of the week! Well said. 👍🏼

If you had done your homework, you would know that those words don’t appear in the law… anywhere, so they aren’t “God’s words” at all. Paul is likely quoting a statement from someone else. Paul expresses surprise at this idea and rips it apart saying, “Did the word of God come only to you” (man)?

Psst… “infamous” means famous for the wrong reasons. ;)

Still you don’t provide quotes showing where I allegedly made such claims. No evidence to support your accusation means no need to defend. Bye.

You just answered your own question.

Stupid question. Cheap shot. Grow up. We can conclude (not ‘concur’) nothing at all. Yes it is crazy, and no, it isn’t valid. Don’t be dense. You know (or certainly should) that male pronouns were used collectively in English until our generation.

Like I said... Quote me... or shut it. Your harping is only reflecting poorly on you. :rolleyes:

Wrong. Angels are messengers. Some messengers are human, some appear as human, and some are distinctly not human. Since you say to compare scripture to scripture, compare these: Genesis 28:12 And he dreamed, and behold a ladder set up on the earth, and the top of it reached to heaven: and...

Nowhere in Scripture does it state that "all angels are males". At best you can state that all angels whose gender is identified are male. That is... what, two? Three? Five? How many angels are there? At least ten thousand times ten thousand (100,000,000). You're making the error of (gross)...

Yup. Nothing about angels there either. Stick to the topic.