₦airaland Forum

solite3:
I think you are right. The Holy Spirit might have revealed to Jude the prophecy of enoch,

"Because of this I say to you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men; but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven"
- Matthew 12:31

"I said that Jude quoted Enoch without any recourse to anything written. That means that he did not quote a written source. He quoted what he was shown by the Holy Spirit what Enoch said, very likely orally. He had a vision, is what I mean"
- Religion / Re: Why Was The Book Of Enoch Removed From The Bible? by Ihedinobi3: 8:48pm On Oct 20

Both you and Ihedinobi3 should be careful with throwing caution to wind, especially when ascribing whether or not the Holy Spirit might have revealed to Jude the prophecy of Enoch. The thing that is certain, is that, the Holy Spirit revealed to Jude and Peter that the Book of Enoch is a practical joke., that a con artist put together the book and has since had a good time deceiving and leading many astray with it. This is why both Peter and Jude sent out their warning letters denouncing and finding fault with the book.

The Bible unlike what Ihedinobi3 is advancing, never suggests, hints nor say anything about Jude having a vision and showing him what Enoch orally said. This is just pure conjecture and/or guesswork. It is behaviour that gives to unintendedly misleading others.

solite3:
and also note that the devil might have also revealed a corrupted version of the prophecy of enoch midst other books to in secret so as to counter the word of God.

When will you guys ever accept that there never was anything like the Book of Enoch and/or prophecy of Enoch.

Nowhere in the entirety of the Bible, old testament or new testament, is there any direct mention of the words "the Book of Enoch and/or prophecy of Enoch." That silence on the non-mention of the words "the Book of Enoch and/or prophecy of Enoch." is deafening.
It is so loud, it iclearly and without doubt, is letting us know nothing like a "the Book of Enoch and/or prophecy of Enoch." ever originally existed. What we have is a manufactured and invented "the Book of Enoch and/or prophecy of Enoch."

solite3:
Do you know that the Egyptian account of creation is similar to that of Moses, so that one might think moses learnt it from the Egyptians just as some think jude got the prophecy from the book of Enoch.

Yes, this is no news, it isn't anything like new info solite3. This is something that's being observed, discussed, explained and so put to rest on Nairaland before as there is nothing wrong with "borrowing technology" and why reinvent the wheel when there's already one done up.

solite3:
In 1933 and 1934, Yahuda identified several similarities between Genesis 1-2 and ancient Egyptian texts. He also identified Egyptian influence throughout the Pentateuch.2

In 1982, Cyrus Gordon showed similarities between the Egyptian and Hebrew traditions of the creation of man.3 He drew several parallels between the creation tradition of Khnum, the potter-god, and Genesis 2:4-25.

In 1983, James Hoffmeier also identified several striking parallels between Genesis 1-2 and ancient Egyptian cosmology.4 First, he discussed the state of the cosmos at the time when God began His creation. The Egyptian and the Hebrew share similar concepts although the words used are unrelated etymologically.5 Second, Hoffmeier mentioned similarities between “the initial acts of creation.”6 Third, Hoffmeier examined the similarities of man’s creation shared by the Egyptian and Hebrew accounts.

https://bible.org/article/genesis-1-2-light-ancient-egyptian-creation-myths
The emboldened you forwarded was from the above website link. Right solite3?

Anyway, as I've earlier advanced, it doesnt make sense, to waste a great deal of time and/or effort in creating something that already exists. Of course, Moses would have to some degree be influenced by his stay in the Egyptian palace, and the exposure to Egyptian culture certainly would have rubbed off on him . God in His infinite wisdom, must have got a very good reason for Moses to grow up in the Egyptian palace.

solite3:
I think this verse refers to the angels of God, I may be wrong but I have my reasons to believe it refers to the angels.

Job 1:6
Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.

solite3, where is the evidence in Job 1:6, that is in a clear and detailed manner, leaving no room for confusion or doubt, showing the bible called or said angels are sons of God?

solite3, there is nothing in that Job 1:6 verse that referred angels to be sons of God now. How did you make the connection and great leap that sons of God in Job 1:6 refers to angels of God, hmm?

You claim you have your reasons to believe it refers to the angels, then quickly, please start giving the reasons, let's see how they'll pan out

solite3, I will after your reasons and explanation, reciprocate you by putting a counter verse(s) alongside Job 1:6 . This verse will show you that Job 1:6 will strongly mean human beings more than it'll ever would mean angels

solite3:
bloodofthlamb you are welcome brother, I think the sons of God in genesis were actually fallen angels who might have possessed human males to have sexual intercourse with women, and this process might lead to a bio engineered genes of the resulting children to be unusual, the reason I think this is true is that

1. It was not recorded that humans were prohibited to inter marry among themselves.
2. The wild and sudden total corruption of the human society meant something devilish actually took place.
3.There was no evidence that certain humans were called sons of God while others were not.
4. angels are sometimes called the sons of God.
5. from the book of Jude these angels were imprisoned for their crimes in the book od noah.
6. The unsual children resulting from such union.

But I believe that such sexual union of the sons of God and the daughters of men were not physical but spiritual through human males.

solite3 you're wrong in thinking the sons of God in genesis were actually fallen angels.

There is evidence that certain humans were called sons of God but there is no evidence from the bible of angels ever at any stage being called the sons of God.

solite3, do you have evidence, that is in a clear and detailed manner, leaving no room for confusion or doubt, that shows the bible calling angels sons of God?

CaveAdullam:
In my own black and white paper Bible, Jude and Peter made reference to the book of Enoch.

CaveAdullam, we know that Jude and Peter paraphrased the Book of Enoch, this meaning, they made references to excerpts gleaned from the Book of Enoch. They did this without making any mention whatsoever of the words, the Book of Enoch.

So CaveAdullam, we are not disputing Jude and Peter made references to the book of Enoch or not, but we are saying the Book of Enoch didnt have the respect and honour to be plainly flat out mentioned anywhere in scripture or the Bible. If other books are visibly mentioned in the Bible, then why is the Book of Enoch an exception, hmm?

gobuchinny:
You obviously just pick scripture out of isolation . The Jewish fables cannot fly because we are not jews . Let me educate you. During this period, The Jewish Christian's had a tendency to beleive that they r more important than gentile Christian's because truly salvation was from the jews. And Christ was a Son from Judah . Remember the issue on circumcision? And how the book of galatians was written to address this issues? How certain jews wanted the gentiles to obey the law. That my friend was part of the issue of that letter to Timothy.

What we r doing here is simply studying history which is what scripture is. Or dont you know the bible you read is historical events muttey . So these r not Jewish myths sir but actual verifiable facts like I said, if only you apply yourself to understand facts and truths.

That you dont know the beliefs of history is an issue to your own belief because if you think beliefs started in your lifetime and so whatever you see in your generation or lifetime is what has been obtaining since creation then you r greatly deceived

It like believing that America existed during Yeshua's time . There was an ancient civilization. Study to understand the world you live in as it existed long before you were born and will still exist long after you n me if Yeshua tarries

The funny thing is as Paul said. Things around us explains the spiritual things. If there were world conflicts and histories that shaped our world dont you think they might be spiritual conflicts that shaped the world also?

What a total load of codswallop, I just wasted my time to read up. You must be high on dry moin-moin leaves to think that circumcision is a Jewish myth or legend. Is it possible to unread the obfuscated garble and claim back my time used reading the senseless write up?

CaveAdullam:
satan did not used his words from his own inspired books to tempt the Lord Jesus Christ but decided to used the words of God in psalms because he knows his words are those of deceit and God's word is true.

How then will God now make reference from the inspired words of satan in the preparation of the 66 books?

Just reasoning.

CaveAdullam, I like it when you begin reasoning and with questionings, so here is a poser question for you, if the book of Enoch is all that esteemed, why isnt there just a single black and white mention of the Book of Enoch, anywhere in scripture, just the same way as those other almost 20 listed books in my earlier comment made to you, erhn?

Is the Book of Enoch that much of an outcast, that no one was prepared to unrestrictedly mention the name of the book ni?

bloodofthelamb:
I definitely agree with muttley on this that the sons of God aren't angels but humans (flesh and blood). I think I have argued about this on this board with the Jehovah witness crew.

Great minds, think alike, but dirty minds work together and this is so evident on this thread

Ihedinobi3:
For what it is worth, I am not on your side, MuttleyLaff.

Nothing is as dangerous as an ignoranus brother, smh. The truth you failed to embrace is already exposing you.

Ihedinobi3:
I can't stop you from quoting me, referencing me, or invoking my name. But, even where it seems as if we are in agreement, we are not on the same side.

Let God be the judge of who is on whose sides, OK Ihedinobi3?

Ihedinobi3:
What is more, your answers here are only more proof of your gross disrespect for the Word of God

Thank you very much for your kindness, support and word of love.

Ihedinobi3:
I could not be more opposed to you, since I rejoice in the Word of God and love it with all my heart. I bow to it, and choose to live for and by it. Also, I am committed to helping anyone who will accept my help to understand it. None of these things is true about you.

Ihedinobi3:
So, it is gross dishonesty to attempt to lump me together with you.

Why you're getting all riled up and what for or what really about, I dont know Ihedinobi3. I just pointed out the truth but I see you're nursing a seething grudge and it tells by the way you took my harmless, honest and innocent comment the wrong way round.

Ihedinobi3, fyi, I am a one man mopol, Billy-No-Mates. I have no pals as you can see I am always alone. I stand for exposing lies, not looking for support, this is why I am a one man mopol.

gobuchinny:
Im concerned for you bro. You really need to read wide. You guys just make comments without indepth study. Dont be lazy and study mehn.

Speak for yourself and be more concerned about yourself than you ought for me

gobuchinny:
Even Paul understood the sins of the Angel's.

Here we go again, gobuchinny, please state where and when Paul understood the alleged sins of the Angels. Thank you in advance, smh.

gobuchinny:
Hence that scripture that you cannot explain. This was common knowledge in the early church. Like it was during the time of Noah. Even the dark side knows it's TRUE. Hollywood knows this but muttey doesnt .

Do you know that the early Israelites believed in those Angel's that birthed giants whose souls are demons? Early apostolic father believed this also. I'm telling you facts that if you were an ardent reader, you would know this things. Its history and history cannot lie.

"¹³That statement is true. For this reason, sharply correct believers so that they continue to have faith that is alive and well.
¹⁴They shouldn't pay attention to Jewish myths or commands given by people who are always rejecting the truth.
(i.e. no longer hold on to Jewish legends or don't pay any attention to any of those senseless Jewish stories and to human commandments)"
- Titus 1:13-14

"Do not waste time arguing over godless ideas and old wives’ tales. Instead, train yourself to be godly.
(i.e. Don't have anything to do with worthless, senseless stories. Work hard to be truly religious)"
- 1 Timothy 4:7

Do you know what advices Paul gave his protégé, Timothy, hmm gobuchinny?

gobuchinny:
It's like an atheist in this day and age denying the existence of the man Jesus . That is foolishness because even Jewisth historians and records prove that Jesus lived and walked the earth. If his saying he doesnt beleive Yeshua is Christ then we know where his problem lies but not that He doesnt exist . infact there r records of his burial and that he wasn't buried like a criminal but as infact a noble. Did you know all this dear muttey.

No gobuchinny, I didnt know all that dear gobuchinny. Thank you very much for this invaluable dear information. I am going to quickly frame it up and place at the foot of my bed, so that every morning I wake up, it'll be the first thing my eyes sets upon

gobuchinny:
So we dont really have an argument here unless we r dealing with facts not what you think of a book but what the beliefs handed down through the custodians of religion and the Only God (Israeleites)

I see you actually dont know jack-shit about me, because if you did, you would have known I dont personally do arguments. I demolish arguments with incontrovertible facts.

budaatum:
The above is the sort of ignorance some think is Godly. He basically is claiming his own knowledge about tomatoes, "putting tomato in a fruit bowl or fruit salad", is all the knowledge and understanding and wisdom knowable about tomatoes, the equivalent of claiming "thou shalt not" is the Wisdom of God. And he spews his ignorance in his yadayada word diarrhea while refusing to consider anything else that anyone else has to say about tomatoes.

I am assured that anyone inclined to do to the tomato what some smart people have done here on the Book of Enoch would more than put a tomato in a "fruit bowl or fruit salad". Even a simple understanding about tomatoes might lead to tomato puree and putting tomatoes in a tin can, both of which prolong the tomatoes very short life, and that's before talking of the various other useful things tomatoes can do and be used for

One should wonder how we Nigerians hardly go two days in a row without eating some tomatoes. Then consider the Wisdom of God and all other things added on to its getting including the prolongation of life on earth and even life eternal. The smarter amongst you make me believe that you shall surely fulfil the sentiment expressed here.

I can always rely on you to look at the wrong end of the telescope and turn putting tomato in a fruit salad or bowl of fruit on its head. Smh and mtchewww is all I have for you

gobuchinny:
I've been saying it that mutty no sabi history . The guy just like dey speak plenty English. Intelligent guy though but his not intelligent in spirituality. Dey use carnal eyes dey look the things of God.

The one that got me is that the sons of God r d descendants of Seth .

Funny guy

gobuchinny why dont you stand up to me with this matter of who are the sons of God and let me have the opportunity of taking you to the cleaners, erhn?

Remember the full comment was:
"As a matter of fact CaveAdullam, the sons of God, spoken of in Job 1:6, Job 2:1 and Job 38:7, plus even Genesis 6:2 and 6:4, lol, are male descendants from the lineage of Seth, originated from Adam, the first acknowledged and kofam, son of God, lol."

Please dont forget that and dont get my comment twisted with your half-truths of what my comment was

gobuchinny:
Please can u explain 1 cor 11 vs 10. Y would Paul be so concerned about the physical appearance of man and the effects with the Angels. I'm curious to know you wild thoughts

gobuchinny, I've already answered you above, so there is no need to repeat the same question again here. Also, it wasnt anything about the physical appearance of man and any ulterior effects with angels, as you seem to suggest

gobuchinny:
Iz alarming how with clear cut proofs, people still come up with wild explanations to justify their beliefs. Just negodu explanation on y Peter and Jude quoted Enoch. Like Peter them consulted Mutty before they wrote the books .

I love it when we discuss with facts and referrals.The fact that two other NT books quoted the book of Enoch VERBATIM . Is enough proof of its authenticity.

Jude nor Peter never verbatim quote the Book of Enoch. You are telling porkies and you know it.

No where in the Bible is the Book of Enoch ever written or spelled out in black an white. It is that much a pariah, it is nowhere, unlike other inspired books, in plain sight ever mentioned in the entirety of the Bible

gobuchinny:
I wonder if mutteylaff has read 1 cor 11 vs 10 . Y would Paul tell women to cover their hairs because of Angels . Oya Mutteylaff over to you oo.

[img]https://s1/images/MuttAmin.gif[/img]
MuttleyLaff is now on trial now
The abridged interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11:10, is behaviour that is in keeping with good taste and propriety. Kept it short and sweet, huh?. Bet you liked that gobuchinny, lol

CaveAdullam:
classic specimen of a human being @muttleylaff, you see this post by uncle buda, yes you have seen it, it is the exact way I have recently started to view things along side books.

I know you want me to tread on good grounds and thanks for that. What I'm really after concerning any spiritual book is the way it ACKNOWLEDGES THE LORD JESUS CHRIST.

DOES THE BOOK REGARDS THE LORD JESUS CHRIST AS LORD AND SON OF GOD?

DOES THE BOOK RECOGNIZES THE FINISHED WORK OF CHRIST JESUS AND HIS PAROUSIA?

If the book tallies with what the Bible says concerning these facts I sheath my sword, take hold of my microscope to see if there be any trace of heresy so that I might come to a proper understanding.

The most important note I always take is how it package the personality of my Lord and God; Jesus Christ and If found wanting it automatically becomes false to me.

I gained some insights in that post of yours concerning tartarus, Sheol, hell, Hades Gehenna.

Thanks.

God bless.

budaatum:
Some think reading a book is for belief, and can't understand that some read books for understanding. I am just glad not all think that way and personally delight in you all's reading.

CaveAdullam, incidentally, I had already partly responded to this budaatum comment but left it fully responded to and so unfinished on my laptop back burner.

Some think reading a book is for belief and having knowledge, and can't understand that, some read books for belief, having knowledge and understanding.

I am just glad not all think that way and personally delight in you all's reading sic.

Knowledge is knowing that a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom, is knowing and understanding, not to put it tomato in a fruit bowl or fruit salad. Wisdom comes from wise thinking, good information, and then good judgement

Wisdom is seeing how the Book of Enoch, slanders the angelic hosts and falsefully accuse them of something impossible for them to carry out. The book insults the intelligence, satirically insults God, and even particularly ridicules events, just same way, we both know as the Quran does. The mind that is behind the Book of Enoch is devilish and perverted.

CaveAdullam, Peter and Jude paraphrased and quoted from the Book of Enoch, knowing that it is fiction and not one moment, believing in any of its ludicrous contents, the same way you and I would sometimes quote from the Quran, when making biblical theological points to a muslim

In the bible, angels are never called sons of God. I challenge you CaveAdullam and anyone else for that matter to search, you will look high and low, long and hard, but will never find any verse in the Bible where God says or calls any angelic being(s) a son(s) of God

gobuchinny:
I saw you say the book of enoch is accursed. Paul said any one that preaches another gospel should be accursed. That book preaches Christ .

MuttleyLaff:
"²²On the day of judgment many will call me their Lord. They will say, “We preached in your name, and in your name we forced out demons and worked many miracles.”
²³ But I will tell them, “I will have nothing to do with you! Get out of my sight, you evil people!”"
- Matthew 7:22-23

C'mon now gobuchinny, you can do better than this. Look at least at Matthew 7:22-23 above, there are similar verses like that more I can give, but that one should just do, lol. Even demons, are known, in the Bible, to preach Christ. Phtt

"²⁴What have you to do with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are—the Holy One of God.
²⁵But Jesus rebuked the spirit. “Be silent!” He said. “Come out of him!”"
- Mark 1:24

CaveAdullam, the above are gobuchinny comment and my response to his no point that the Book of Enoch preaches Christ. His comment has some similarity to your tone that the Book of Enoch as far as you are concerned acknowledges the Lord Jesus Christ. Well CaveAdullam, I presented gobuchinny with Matthew 7:22-23 to show the pointlessness of holding such a viewpoint like that, but with you, I will palm you Mark 1:24-25 above.

As you can see CaveAdullam, recognising and/or acknowledging the Lord Jesus Christ, doesnt mean, one has good intentions, it doesnt mean one wouldnt be rightfully dealth with, as was done in Mark 1:25, to that foul spirit that recognised and even acknowledged our Lord Jesus Christ

CaveAdullam, the book of Enoch encourages belief in Jewish fables. God, in Titus 1:14 says, we are not to listen to Jewish fables.

The book of Enoch tallies with nothing that the Bible says, thats concerning facts. It is a catalogue of one lopsided contradiction after another
You need to unsheath your sword, take hold of the microscope, and this time look in through the right end up, in order to clearly and properly see , each trace and every detail of heresy in the uninspired by God accursed book, so to come to a good understanding.

CaveAdullam, don't be joining gang, please I beg you, dont be tossed to and fro by the waves and get carried about by every wind of doctrine. I didnt expect to hear a bullet fired in the air at me, and turn round to come see, you're the one behind the smoking gun. The sight hurt me.

CaveAdullam, I have done this earlier for nijabazaar but I will for your fyi and benefit redo it here below again. Now, CaveAdullam, brace yourself and let me show you a few proofs that the book of Enoch, is a first century bestseller fantansy/fiction pack book. Dont worry CaveAdullam, about needing to do any heavy liftings, as I'll do them for you without you ever so much need to lift you teeny weeny little finger, nor risk get your hands dirty.

1/ "... and the number was not entered in the book of the annals of King David (i.e. never written in King David's official records)" - 1 Chronicles 27:24
2/ "... written in the Book of the Acts of Solomon?" - 1 Kings 11:41
3/ "... are indeed written in the Book of Samuel the See ..." - 1 Chronicles 29:29
4/ "... are indeed written in the ... the Book of Nathan the Prophet ..." - 1 Chronicles 29:29 and/or 2 Chronicles 9:29
5/ "... are indeed written in the ... the Book of Gad the Seer," - 1 Chronicles 29:29
6/ "... indeed they are written in the book of Jehu the son of Hanani, which is mentioned in the book of the kings of Israel." - 2 Chronicles 20:34
7/ "Now the rest of the acts of Uzziah, first and last, were written by Isaiah the prophet, the son of Amoz." - 2 Chronicles 26:22
8/ "... they are written in the vision of Isaiah son of Amoz the prophet, on the book of the kings of Judah and Israel" - 2 Chronicles 32:32
9/ "... indeed they are written among the sayings of Hozai" - 2 Chronicles 33:19
10/ "... behold, it is written in the book of Jasher," - Joshua 10:13 and 2 Samuel 1:18
11/ "... are they not written in the book of Shemaiah the prophet, and of Iddo the seer concerning genealogies? " - 2 Chronicles 12:15
12/ "... it is stated in the Book of the Wars of the LORD:" - Numbers 21:14
13/ UNLIKE OTHER MENTIONS, THERE IS NO OUTRIGHT MENTION OF THE Book of Enoch IN THE BIBLE. GOD and the Bible does not see the Book of Enoch deemed worthy enough to be black and white mentioned in the scripture. The book is a pariah, not worthy to physically be seen written the Bible.
14/ "... as it is written in the book of the law of Moses," - Joshua 8:31
15/ "... behold, it is written in the book of Jasher," - 2 Samuel 1:18
16/ "... as it is written in the law of Moses" - 2 Chronicles 23:18
17/ "... as it is written in the law of the LORD." - 2 Chronicles 31:3
18/ "... as it is written in the book of Moses" - 2 Chronicles 35:12
19/ "... as it is written in the book of this covenant," - 2 Kings 23:21
20/ "... as it is written in the law of Moses the man of God..." - Ezra 3:2
21/ "... as it is written in the law" - Nehemiah 10:36

1/ ".. But He answered and said, It is written," - Matthew 4:4
2/ "... Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God." - Matthew 4:7
3/ "... Then saith Jesus unto them, All ye shall be offended because of me this night: for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad." - Matthew 26:31
4/ ""For," said Peter, "it is written in the Book of Psalms: "'May his place be deserted; let there be no one to dwell in it,' and, "'May another take his place of leadership." - Acts 1:20
5/ " Paul replied, “Brothers, I did not realize that he was the high priest; for it is written: ‘Do not speak evil about the ruler of your people" - Acts 23:5
6/ "Rather, as it is written: “No eye has seen, no ear has heard, no heart has imagined, what God has prepared for those who love Him.”" - 1 Corinthians 2:9
7/ "Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?" - John 10:34
8/ "As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated." - Romans 9:13
9/ "Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God." - Hebrews 10:7
10/ "Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy." - 1 Peter 1:16

CaveAdullam, I know the above two set of listings are self explanatory enough, but I'll nonetheless, explain. The first, one to twenty one above, is part of the remarkable proof, that whenever you're reading about texts or books of undisputed origin and not something like the nature of the Book of Enoch, you'll find the Bible or the prophets in the Old Testament making the connection with sayings, like "as it is written in the ..." or "... it is written ..." or "... for it is written" or " it is stated" or "indeed they are written", but fraudulent books like the book of Enoch is deprived of this high opinion, respect and honour and never given the courtesy of mentioning of the word Book of Enoch anywhere in the scripture. There is no official approval or recognition of the Book of Enoch and so unlike others as can be seen in the above listings, it gets no mention whatsover anywhere in the Old Testament

CaveAdullam, equally in New Testament (i.e. the other 1-10 listing) with the Johannine, Pauline or Petrine letters and even Jesus Christ too, you'll find in their letters and/or when discussing texts or books of undisputed origin and not something like the nature of the Book of Enoch, again you'll see the use the familiar phrase or similar "as it is written in the ..." or "... it is written ..." or "... for it is written" or " it is stated" or "indeed they are written".

CaveAdullam, I submit to you that Jude nor Peter NEVER used "as it is written in the ..." or "... it is written ..." or "... for it is written" or " it is stated" or "indeed they are written" when paraphrasing the Book of Enoch because it is a popular well known best selling fantansy/fiction book that was well circulated up to and around the first century.

As I have earlier highlighted and advanced CaveAdullam, the Bible doesn't generally quote books of questionable and/or profane sources, like the Book of Enoch is, this is why the Bible too, never has "as it is written" or "... it is written" as a form of certification and accreditation of the book of Enoch anywhere in the entirety of the Bible. The book of Enoch was never treated as being inspired by God and this solely why so it wasnt ever authoritatively used or referenced, but it was just merely paraphrased and passingly referenced without at all making mention of the words, the Book of Enoch.

CaveAdullam, on towards closing this post, fyi, the Enoch featured in the Book of Enoch, is not the same Enoch mentioned in Genesis, Luke and Hebrews. How can we know this I hear you, ask under your breath, well, it is because no mention of Enoch in the entirety of the "The Book of Enoch" was made about Enoch in the book, in reference to him being a man of faith (i.e. the book doesnt like as done with Hebrews 11:5 confirm this) nor is there any reference to Enoch's genealogy (i.e. no genelogy like as done in Luke 3:37), instead the book, obviously a work of fiction, made a complete glaring birth position order mistake when compared and contrasted with the two real Enoch of the Bible, birth order positions, in their genealogies.

CaveAdullam smh, may I have your attention, please? May I have your attention, please? Will the real Slim Shady Enoch please stand up?
I repeat, will the real Slim Shady Enoch please stand up? We're gonna have a problem here. Y'all act like you never know ... Lol, smh.

CaveAdullam I felt inclined to intimate you with the "as it is written" above persuasion and to explain that Peter and Jude, only used the book of Enoch as source material. They were not in any shape or form endorsing the Book of Enoch as scripture that is God-breathed.

Lastly on closing, fyi, every other book mentioned in the above listings are lost. The Book of Jasher you currectly see about and possibly might have read is a hoax. It is not the real missing book of Jasher. Did you hear the voice of reason, Ihedinobi3, what he said about this matter hmm? He said has it been considered that these books may only be forgeries that were given the names of the true originals named in the Bible? Well, CaveAdullam, I have done my bit, I've shown how to do the litmus test to find out, if or not any book, appearing genuine or stating to be true, though not necessarily so, is really an inspired word and work of God. Did I hand you back your knife? Lol.

Amujale:
The Book of Enoch was removed from the bible in order to affirm its unauthencity.

Further more, Enoch isnt the only part of the bible that has been subject to the scissors in recent history. Others include Esdras, Tobit, Judith, Sirach, Baruch, Susanna, the first and second Maccabees.

The main point to take out of the invention of the bible is that it peddles a fake representation of history.

Jude, initially didnt make it into the canon, all because of its rephrasing of and paraphrasing from the unauthentic Book of Enoch.

gobuchinny:
Mutteylaff finds it difficult to believe in the origins of Spirits and celestial beings .

Sir, you dont know what MuttleyLaff believes in. You have the foggiest idea what MuttleyLaff believes in

gobuchinny:
That the God He worships is Spirit and presides over spirits.

I am glad and pleased to know that we agree this much that God is Spirit and He presides over spirits

gobuchinny:
He cant beleive that angel like humans have a choice to obey or rebel against Elohim. That the first stars rebelled and were thrown down to earth

Two out of two, this is not bad, I hope you can keep up this we agreeing with each other

gobuchinny:
and the second stars were ensnared by lust for women . That giants were born and the spirits of these giants are demons .

Oh oh, spoke too soon, here is the YOYO point, here is where we part on our agreeing, it was fun when it lasted. Where from in the entire scripture, except from the accursed Book of Noah, do you read in a clear and detailed manner, leaving no room for confusion or doubt that angels were ensnared and lusted after women, hmm?

Where from in the entire Bible, if not from the accursed Book of Noah, do you read in a clear and detailed manner, leaving no room for confusion or doubt that it was angels who gave birth to giants that were born and the spirits of these giants are demons, hmm? Smh.

gobuchinny:
Archaeology has proven that giants existed.

So? Dont you know that the Bible before the archaeology discoveries that proves giants existed already had stated that giants were on earth before the sons of God went into the daughters of men and after

gobuchinny:
I heard him ask one time how d Angel's consummated with man . Funny.

Yeah, lol, tell me now, dont spare me the graphic.

gobuchinny:
Even now humans can change sex from Male to female so how is it difficult for celestial beings to do same?

Humans can change sex from male to female, because fundamentally and physiologically they are not human beings. It is difficult for celestial beings to do same because of the following reasons:
1/ Number one reason, God doesnt permit and/or allow sex change or whatnot to be done by celestial being.
2/ Then number two reason, celestial beings, also known as angelic hosts, make themselves visible to human beings and their näked physical eyes only when on official assignment and sent by God. Angels fallen or not, know their limits, and so operate within the limits of their operation. Angels, fallen or not fallen, appear, looking as though they are humans when they are not. What you see when or if they appear, is the impression of being human beings, but they are not human beings gobuchinny, period.

gobuchinny:
That the Sun, moon, stars are a link/bridge between the realm of the Spirit and physical. Or how else do you think the sun suspends and doesn't drop on earth? How do you assume that the sun can power the whole earth and knows when to rise and set? Everyday, and on time . That my friend is not ordinary. So it is weird that Enoch talks about the Spirits of the stars and how they have a mind of their own? And how he saw the dwellings of these celestial beings?.

"¹⁴And God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to distinguish between the day and the night, and let them be signs to mark the seasons and days and years.
¹⁵And let them serve as lights in the expanse of the sky to shine upon the earth.” And it was so.
¹⁶God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night. And He made the stars as well.
¹⁷God set these lights in the expanse of the sky to shine upon the earth,
¹⁸to preside over the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good.
¹⁹And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day. "
- Genesis 1:14-19

Of course, the sun, moon and stars are a link/bridge between the realm of the Spirit and physical, but not just that my dear friend gobuchinny, but when God, on the fourth day, created the sun, moon and stars, God effectively was setting a clock, lol. Remember Genesis 1:14 and the rest above, hmm?

gobuchinny:
So man can preserve his words in books how do you assume the God of the whole world cant do same?

The Book of Enoch is not an inspired book of God

gobuchinny:
I saw you say the book of enoch is accursed. Paul said any one that preaches another gospel should be accursed. That book preaches Christ .

"²²On the day of judgment many will call me their Lord. They will say, “We preached in your name, and in your name we forced out demons and worked many miracles.”
²³ But I will tell them, “I will have nothing to do with you! Get out of my sight, you evil people!”"
- Matthew 7:22-23

C'mon now gobuchinny, you can do better than this. Look at least at Matthew 7:22-23 above, there are similar verses like that more I can give, but that one should just do, lol. Even demons, are known, in the Bible, to preach Christ. Phtt

gobuchinny:
It was read by the early church and hidden amongst the dead sea scrolls. The evil roman Catholics would have done worse if they had a chance. They would have put their own authored books if given the opportunity But remember the foolishness of God is wiser than men and God uses men to accomplish His will. Hence we have the bible as we know it but there r other books that were equally inspired and were quoted in the bible. Books are not deemed scripture by men but by God .

God in his infinite wisdom unlike the Book of Jasher wasnt allowed to be mentioned in the Bible because of the known fact that the accursed Book of Enoch, unlike the lost Book of Jasher, is not at all an inspired work of God but is that of the devil and is from the pit of hell.

gobuchinny:
You have not answered @ỌkCornel question about Jude referencing Enoch

He is a person non grata to me. His case is once bitten, twice shy. Fool me once, shame on him. Fool me twice, would be shame on me then, but I am not willing to be burned twice by the same flame, it wont happen so it wont be my fault and no shame on me. Let each maintain and stay their lanes.

gobuchinny:
You really cant answer it cause it's as clear as day that these men read the book hence the referral.

gobuchinny, it is not just only today that have started answering and/or explained passingly what was going on with Peter and Jude referencing, paraphrasing and in codes, talking about excerpts of the Book of Enoch in their warning letters.

gobuchinny, if you really have carefully read all my comments on and about the accursed Book of Enoch, I have always advanced the notion that Peter and Jude along with a bunch of others have back to back read the Book of Enoch and similar of its nature. I consistently also have advanced why they made reference to the Book of Enoch, whilst no other biblical writer has. Even in my post above this one, I further have explained the rationale behind why and how Peter and Jude paraphrased the Book of Enoch, as they did in their warning letters to people with reprobate minds having similar ideologies to the the one you seem to be gravitating to gobuchinny

gobuchinny:
if the book does not make you comfy den dont read it. I can however say that a true son of God desirous for more understanding of God will enjoy that book.

MuttleyLaff:
Fyi, it is in the Ethiopic version of the book of Enoch 7:10-12, where it said, the height of the born baby giants were three hundred cubits, that is the length of one and of a half football field pitch, whilst other versions, like the The Book of Enoch, actually say they are three thousand cubits hence making the born baby giants to be as high as a 45-story building.

Everyone knows there is only one Bible but multiple translation versions, but with the Book of Enoch, apart from the lost first century book, there are actually three different Book of Enoch and not three translation version, they dont even compliment each other, like bible translations do.

Ogbeni, stop and just go grow the balls, open a thread, mention and invite me to it. Let's see how you'll fare on it, mano mano with me.

MuttleyLaff:
"It is the one referenced in the New Testament by Peter and Jude, where they were denouncing it and funnily enough the heresy(ies) in the book

I couldnt believe what tall tale narrative I was reading that I had to chuck it aside because what I was reading just wasnt adding up together. No wonder Peter and Jude re-echoing Peter were among other things, condemning the Book of Enoch in their letter"
- by MuttleyLaff: 7:38pm On Apr 16 2019

"Where did Peter and Jude denounce Enoch or the book of Enoch?"
- by elated177: 1:33pm On Apr 18 2019

"^7:10Then they took wives, each choosing for himself; whom they began to approach, and with whom they cohabited; teaching them sorcery, incantations, and the dividing of roots and trees.
^7:11And the women conceiving brought forth giants
^7:12Whose stature was each three hundred cubits. These devoured all [which] the labor of men [produced]; until it became impossible to feed them;"
- The Ethiopic version of the book of Enoch 7:10-12

"¹And they took wives for themselves and everyone chose for himself one each. And they began to go into them and were promiscuous with them. And they taught them charms and spells, and they showed them the cutting of roots and trees.
²And they became pregnant and bore large giants. And their height was three thousand cubits."
- The Book of Enoch. Chapter 7:1-2

I'll tell you what, among in it, I read before I chucked the book aside as complete nasty bad bullshit and a waste of time, it is in the Ethiopic version of the book of Enoch 7:10-12, where it said the height of the born baby giants were three hundred cubits, that is the length of one and of a half football field pitch, whilst other versions like the The Book of Enoch, even said it's actually three thousand cubits hence making the born baby giants to be as high as a 45-story building. Haba! Wetin now?

gobuchinny, did you read the two above comments of mine, brought here quoted from other threads? Is that the kind of ludicrous things, written by someone high of dry banana leaves that you enjoy reading, ehrn? There are more I can share with you, but hey ...

The book wont make me comfy to wipe my bum with, but I wouldnt hesistate using it, in the absence of readily available toilet tissue paper.

CaveAdullam:
Awiite let me ask you the question my self;

God has permitted you to reveal your true face. You're mocker CaveAdullam, under normal circumstances I wouldnt have bat an eyelid or give you the time or day, but today is a forgiving day for a lucky treacherous person. You want to punch above your weight, hmm? Right then be my guest then. Put on your seat belt on and hold tight, I sure hope you have a strong stomach for going on this ride and bumpy road with me, lol.

CaveAdullam, I've just prayed and hope you be capable enough to patiently read a long post and obtain without difficulty every ounce of info this post is going to be fully charged with, lol. Mind you, I might have to split the post into two parts, as I am guessing if not it'll be a very long post and the gods of Nairaland wont take kindly to something like that, a very long post.

CaveAdullam:
Jude 1 v 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.

“⁴Again the Lord said to Raphael, Bind Azazyel hand and foot; cast him into darkness; and make an opening in the desert, which is in Dudael (i.e. Gods Kettle/Crucible/Cauldron), cast him in there
⁵Throw upon him hurled and pointed stones, covering him with darkness;
⁶There shall he remain for ever; cover his face, that he may not see the light.
⁷And in the great day of judgment let him be cast into the fire.
⁸Restore the earth, which the angels have corrupted; and announce life to it, that I may revive it.
And heal the Earth which the angels have corrupted, and proclaim the healing of the Earth, that they may heal the plague,
⁹All the sons of men shall not perish in consequence of all the secret things that the Watchers have disclosed and have taught their sons.
¹⁰All the earth has been corrupted by the effects of the teaching of Azazyel. To him therefore ascribe the whole crime (i.e. to him ascribe all sin)
- Enoch 10: 4-9

“¹And these are the names of the holy angels who watch.
²Uriel, one of the holy angels, who is over the world and over Tartarus
- Enoch 20: 1-2

"For if God did not spare the angels having sinned, but having cast them down to Tartarus, in chains of gloomy darkness, delivered them, being kept for judgment;
- 2 Peter 2:4

For if God did not forgive the angels that sinned, but cast them down into the deepest abyss {Gr. Tartarus} and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;"
- 2 Peter 2:4

One of the various sources, that first century people back in biblical times then, got their fable tales and legend info from about angels having sexual intercourse with human beings etcetera was from writings like the Book of Enoch.

Now CaveAdullam, first thing first, you need to have the understanding of is that the content of Jude 1:6, was originally first mentioned in one of the Petrine epistles. Fyi, Jude 1:6, actually was first mentioned by Peter in 2 Peter 2:4 to be precise and I took the liberty to copy it out, as can be seen above. Jude though copying from Peter's letter, both Peter and Jude, in their individual warning letters both paraphrase the Book of Enoch, I mean look at Enoch 10: 4-9 above, to be precise. Do you notice the similarities? Anyway, it is from Peter's letter, that Jude was taking lead from, when he wrote his version of warning letter to those same believing in fairy tales mytical make-believe stories about angels and taken to all that nonsense and ingredients rubbish thats in the accursed Book of Enoch

There are many telltale signs, that betrays the Book of Enoch and gives it away as a fanstatic speculative fiction book. Some of the telltale signs, I've already before mentioned on this thread, like for example when I earlier responded to one of the nijabazaar comments. The Book of Enoch, no doubt was authored by a Greek mythology influenced first century person with an over-imaginative mind.

MuttleyLaff:
Hell or better put, Hades, actually is a Greek concept, the Jews have no concept of Hell or Hades. They have Sheol, alright but the concept of Hell or Hades, is a Greek one.

Sheol is more of a proper and real biblical Israelite concept of where the dead are ''interned'' and Sheol in an oversimplified or elementary manner can be grave or has been referred as grave

Grave/tomb/sepulchre sites are merely places of deposit for a corpse. Sheol is the realm of the dead or departed souls
- Souls do not linger in the air. Souls do not stay in limbo. Souls do not hang about. Souls do not make revisits

Until Jesus in the NT, Sheol in general, without necessarily distinguishing between righteous or unrighteous souls, has been the realm of the dead or abode of the dead

We have verses in OT (e.g. Psalm 9:17 etcetera) suggesting that the wicked go to Sheol but it was Jesus in the NT that brought things into perspective when he shared the hyperbolic illustration of Sheol with the story of the Rich Man being elsewhere and Abraham with the Poor Man being on a different side

Remember just like because you're telling a joke, it doesnt necessarily mean, the joke is devoid of some element of truth and reality so is the case with the parable of the rich man and poor man.

Sheol (i.e. the original Hebrew concept of afterlife) now has gray lines shared with Gehenna (i.e. the refuse dump in Jerusalem hyperbolically referred to by Jesus in Matthew 5:29 Matthew 18:9 and Mark 9:47) and Hell (i.e. a Greek mythology and Greek concept of afterlife) which arent really understood

The etymology of afterlife from a Jewish concept (i.e. Sheol, with 2 sections) has changed over time and Sheol, since, has being interchangeably replaced with Gehenna and Hell/Hades

Reiterating, hell which has become synonymous with Hades, is neither Hebrew or Greek in origin. Sheol is, what you'll find in the original Hebrew text for any word for Hell. In other places, Hades or Hell was the Greek substitution for the part of Sheol where the Rich man is from the Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus

As a matter of fact, Hell, actually finds it roots in the classic Greek mythology, Hades, where Hades interestingly and actually, was the ancient Greek god of the underworld. This god's name (i.e. Hades) later turned to mean the place or abode of the dead, which actually is exactly what Sheol is, what is signifies or represents.

Talking about Gehenna, well it is a valley, a valley in Jerusalem, used as a dumping refuse site and so was used by Jesus to depict the Lake of fire
(i.e. it is a place of destruction, as in, via incineration, a place for destroying things)

As earlier mentioned, Gehenna was the incinerating refuse dump in Jerusalem. Hades however, historically and originally is the name of a Greek god until it got turned to meaning the place or abode of the dead. It later got interchanged with hell, which is from a German word root. It was bible translators who were substituing the original Hebrew word Sheol (i.e. the part where the dead of the Rich man sort are), with Greek counterparts Hades/Hell that made hell stick with us today

Death is not a physical person but it will cease to exist because it will be destroyed when figuratively thrown into a physical lake of fire

As I was saying, the proof of this is in the use of the term "tartarus" which has origins from a Greek mythology influence

CaveAdullam it'll surprise you to know that the word "tartarus" is only used once in the entire Bible. Why? It is because "tartarus" is a foreign concept to Jewish beliefs. Nobody, no other writer except for Peter, in 2 Peter 2:4 used the Greek mythology influenced "tartarus" word. The word appears only once in the entire New Testament and that was in a warning letter Peter sent to those people who were into Greek mythology and the beliefs in a Greek god named Hades. Peter was paraphrasing the Book of Enoch when he used the term "tartarus" and content of 2 Peter 2:4, and this he did that way because he knew those reading his warning letter are in tune with the the Book of Enoch and will recognise where from he paraphrased in his warning letter.

CaveAdullam, lets break down a bit further this word "tartarus" shenanigan, erhn? As I've earlier said, the concept of Tartarus has no history or place in the Jewish belief, it is a concept that has links with ancient Greek mythology. Look at the reproduced quote of mine above, from another thread, talking about Hades etcetera, well fyi CaveAdullam, according to ancient Greek mythology, Tartarus, is one of the realms within Hades. It is situated lower than even Hades (i.e. the deepest abyss of Hades), its the place of the dead, and seen to be a horrible pit of torment in the afterlife, populated by ferocious monsters and the worst of criminals.

CaveAdullam:
Now further questions for those proposing the sons God to be the Sons of Seth

1) Which angels was Jude referring to in verse 6, and when did they leave their first estate?

Jude was taking cue from Peter, who first paraphrased from the Book of Enoch, as I have earlier advanced. They, as in, both Jude and Peter, used a foreign ideology not anywhere known in scripture, meaning not found in the Bible or in an average Yahweh believing Jewish mind set, but is in books, like the Book of Enoch, well-known to reprobates who would believe in something ludicrous as angels, indulging in sexual relationships with female human beings. Jude or Peter were not in their letters teaching that angels have reproductive plumbing to give seminal fluids to earthly women that will impregnate them, but were using the Book of Enoch as a reference point to warn those unprincipled in their wacko beliefs to stop slandering angels and falsely accusing angels of what they never done. The book of Enoch listed at least, 200 fallen angels, as leaders who vacated their habitation. Go read each one of the Bible verses contextually and read slowly and loudly now to see how Jude and Peter laid into these people, cast aspersions on them and their figment of imagination CaveAdullam, lol.

CaveAdullam:
2) If you say it is those angels that rebelled alongside Lucifer, shouldn't they all be in everlasting chains right now awaiting judgement? Shouldn't this earth be free from demons and evil spirits?

Well thats what I thought too, that shouldnt this earth be free from demons and evil spirits if they are already slammed up, so CaveAdullam, shouldnt we be asking the impostor fake Enoch who wrote that accursed fantasy book of Enoch about this erhn lol?. It is not the first time the impostor fake Enoch has contradicted himself, shot full of holes and tied himself up in a knot with deviant, outlandish, preposterous and freakish storylines.

CaveAdullam:
3) The sons of God spoken of in Job Chapters 1 and 2, are they also male descendants from the lineage of Seth?

Emphatic yes, they are also male descendants from the lineage of Seth.

As a matter of fact CaveAdullam, the sons of God, spoken of in Job 1:6, Job 2:1 and Job 38:7, plus even Genesis 6:2 and 6:4, lol, are male descendants from the lineage of Seth, originated from Adam, the first acknowledged and kofam, son of God, lol.

[img]https://s3/images/ToDoListFcuk.gif[/img]

CaveAdullam:
Any move will be a checkmate.

[img]https://s3/images/3xsmhp.gif[/img]
You have decided to join the gang and become a tool in the devil's workshop too, hmm, abi?

CaveAdullam:
Lol.

[img]https://media./images/e3544b8117d3ecbb0cb8751f1ce0ff71/tenor.gif[/img]
Whats the point of this comment and meaning of the laugh, CaveAdullam erhn? You really for that comment and smirking laugh, smh, fall for my hand, and nobi small fall sef hin be.

Now #1, CaveAdullam, if you werent aware, I stopped pricing market anymore from this person I have become to know to be a persona non grata. I am since after that now repeatedly have being stalked and harassed by this person even after making it clearly known to the person that I dont want to have anything to do with the person ever again. To rise prick, nobi by force nau.

MuttleyLaff:
When better pesin, like dem kkins25, missjo or similar asks, I'll explain, just as I previously have done, but of course some pipul we wont mention names dont read posts that's more than one or two sentences, so wouldnt have read my previous comments about this

#2, is in relation to the above quote of mine. As you can see from it, I have more than once previously passingly treated what Jude and even Peter before him was doing with Jude 1 v 6, but hey some of us have challenges reading post thats longer or more than two sentences, lol.

CaveAdullam, if its you, if you have any specific questions or have anything specific you want illiumination on, then why not please kindly ask me directly yourself. You know I'll always oblige you and never will I get tired from attending to you. Why cant you just do that, instead of losing your faith of me just like that in this matter and be laughing at me. CaveAdullam, I am OK with others slapping me in the front & on my face, but hey nwanne dear "friend" here's your knife back, I pulled it out from left in there, sticking out of in my back.

ichuka:
Hi Bro
Take it easy na.
We are here to edify our spirit-man right?
All these your questions pass eng/geo-502 questions oo.

Nwanne, yeah, we're here to build up our spirit-man right to the truth of who really were and who are the sons of God.

All those questions arent necessarily pass eng/geo-502 questions but when each of them questions are answered by missjo, it will, with more questioning, develop and lead to unravel who really were and who are the sons of God.

If each of those questions are answered by missjo or anyone else brave enough to answer them, it will lead to a realisation that angels arent in the equation of the sons of God or even at all, for that matter, be equal to sons of God

missjo:
Beautiful

I just wanted to be clear that the 'fatherhood' of God is not a concept that begins at the point where Jesus the Christ was begotten of God as a man, but rather something that has always and will always be (timeless in a sense).

Ihedinobi3:
You're right about that. It is not something restricted to the Lord Jesus in His Humanity. As Acts 17:28 (which I mentioned to you earlier)

"for in Him we live and move and have our being, as also some of your own poets have said, ‘For we are also His offspring. (i.e. We too are his children)"
- Acts 17:28

"Sometimes, the word "son" is saying something more than that something derives from another. Sometimes, it describes the nature of a thing. This is what you see in Isaiah 14:12. Although, it is most definitely true that Satan and all angels, along with all mankind, are God's offspring (Acts 17:28), this verse is saying actually that Satan was a very bright angel. That is, he exuded light that was visible enough to be compared to the morning. Compare Revelation 22:16; 2 Peter 1:19."
- Re: Why Is Christ Both God And Man In Gods Redemptive Plan? by Ihedinobi3: 7:23am On Oct 18

The use of the word "son" in Isaiah 14:12 is done as a form of Hebraism and is in no way associating Satan and any angel to be children of God, sons of God or God's offspring. This is part of reason why I earlier asked missjo the questions:
Is God the Father of animals, is He the Father of mountains, is He the Father of fishes?.

I also, asked missjo:
Is the "m" in that Isaiah 14:12 verse, morning, capitalised at all, as in, is it in upper case M, hmm?

I was just asking missjo then, as it would be in her good stead if the "m" was capitalised, and she would have had a strong case, don't you think, hmm? Eisegesis tsk, tsk, tsk, tsk, hmm, be careful of that.

Ihedinobi3:
... and the various references to the sonship of the angels in the Bible make quite clear, it is something that applies to Creation in general.

missjo, the Bible has nowhere, in a strong way, made any various references and/or say without any doubt, that angels are the sons of God. The sonship of angels, always advanced and as again done here by Ihedinobi3, is nothing more than just conjecture based on populist rhetoric verses like Job 1:6, Job 2:1 and Job 38:7

missjo, if you 2 Timothy 2:15 review the Job 1:6, Job 2:1 and Job 38:7 verses contextually (i.e. lets just for now park Genesis 6:2 and 6:4), you will find out that it is not correct to connect the sons of God in them verses to be angels at all, at all. missjo, this is because all evidences, in the Book of Job, points everything about the phrase "sons of God" to be human beings. This info missjo about the "sons of God" in the Book of Job and any other place in the Bible, that they are human beings and never angels, you can take to the bank.

Ihedinobi3:
So, God (by which we mean the Trinity) is the Father of all our spirits (Hebrews 12:9, cf. Numbers 16:22; 27:16).

"Our earthly fathers correct us, and we still respect them. Isn't it even better to be given true life by letting our spiritual Father correct us?"
- Hebrews 12:9

But Moses and Aaron fell facedown and said, “O God, the God of the spirits of all flesh, when one man sins, will You be angry with the whole congregation?”"
- Numbers 16:22

Let the LORD, the God of the spirits of all flesh, set a man over the congregation"
- Numbers 27:16

The Bible has nowhere, in a strong way, made any references and/or say without any doubt, that angels are the sons of God. The sonship of angel, advanced here by Ihedinobi3, is nothing more than just conjecture based on populist rhetoric verses like Job 1:6, Job 2:1

The context of Hebrews 12:9, Numbers 16:22 and Numbers 16:22 above are each and all talking about human beings, period.

God had never called angels sons of God nor Son of God, if missjo and Ihedinobi3 believe and think He has, then, please provide just one bible verse of angels referring themselves as sons of God, of God calling them sons of God or God the Father ever calling any of the angels "My Son"

Why are your scriptures about the sons of God of being angels has no New Testament reference of angels being called sons of God?

missjo:

What is the meaning of this self-satisfied smirk, hmm, missjo? You NEVER answered MY questions! You do such a wonderful job turning aside from the questions. How are we going to have advances if you havent the courage or confidence to answer my questions and arent ready for me to further question your answers, erhn?

missjo, you're letting Ihedinobi3 and him using rhetorics lead on to conclusions that are not correct because the phrase “sons of God” whether used in either Old Testament or New Testamen scripture always from day one refers to human beings.

missjo, I wouldn't expect you to agree to, accept and/or believe everything you read face value, that Ihedinobi3 or I type on Nairaland without questioning them. I expect you not to be satisfied with only knowing the how, but to always question, question to a void, all in the quest to know the why and the actual truth. Questioning answers, one question to another question, often leads to discoveries being made and truth ultimately getting brought to the surface.

I get that, some people who are not spiritually mature, prepared and ready to answer straightforward easy, simple and direct questions and so aren't spiritually mature and aren't ready to answer straightforward easy, simple and direct questions questions put at them.

Curiosity has its own reason for existing.

Thinking begins when you answer straightforward easy, simple and direct questions questions put at you
The important thing is not to dodge or evade answering the questions. Don't be afraid of giving answers, but be afraid of not answering the questions. Find the courage to ask yourself the same questions I am asking you that you're hesistant to give answers to. Why missjo? It's because its the only way you'll know which direction, missjo, your truth of the “sons of God” lays.

John 1:12 in a clear and detailed manner, leaving no room for confusion or doubt, tells who becomes and how one becomes a son of God. Galatians 3:26 the last verse in the New Testament with a last mention of the phrase "sons of God" says how and through whom one becomes "sons of God" Angels dont get a sniff of enjoying the privilege of being called "sons of God"

The phrase "sons of God" in all the Old Testament and the New Testament has ever being just about human beings period.

missjo:
MuttleyLaff, have you got a different interpretation of the verse i posted to ihedinobi above?

1/ missjo, what verse, would that be?
2/ Also how as per your understanding, have you interpreted the verse to be? I am guessing you're referring to the latter part of John 17:24, as the verse you posted to ihedinobi3 above. Right?
3/ What is the relevance of the verse to my question about when in time, did God start being a Father?
4/ Backing up with scripture reference(s), who first, in the earliest recorded bible history, did God become Father to?
5/ Backing up with scripture reference(s), list up to five lot, close or more, who God from the beginning of being a Father to date is Father to.
6/ missjo, how was the world, creation created?
7/ missjo, with what was the world, creation, created with?
8/ missjo, what was with God before the creation of the world, even before the world began?
9/ missjo, what was Jesus from this very beginning, before being or becoming Jesus, hmm?
10/ missjo, do you think its hard for God or there's anything wrong in God sending Himself on an errand to earth, hmm?
11/ missjo, technically speaking who and what would you call the person who sent to earth, the one called Jesus Christ, hmm?

Mind you missjo, you haven't yet and at all, answered the thrust of my question missjo and that being, when, as in meaning, at what point or moment in time, did God start being a Father. Don't forget your backing scripture to support and validate your answer with. Thanks in advance for your reply missjo lol.

nijabazaar:
I lovveee this kinda Debate!!!

We really have intelligent Beings on this forum.

Intelligent beings with enough sense wiseness, to know that Book of Enoch should when found be used as toilet paper to wipe bum with and then flushed down the toilet, where it belongs

missjo:
The answers you require are all there Muttley.

I only asked for one answer, not answers missjo. All I see what you call answers are you making use of many and/or too many words to hide under and bury the fact that you still havent answered the thrust of my question.

missjo:
And correction, i didn't say the Nephilim (giants) are the sons of God, i said they are the offsprings of the sons of God.

Never mind if I thought you said Nephilim (giants) are the sons of God, but hey, please indulge me, who according to your understanding or as far as you are concerned are the "sons of God". I must say, I very much would like to have the verse(s) you rely upon that categorically and specifically calls whatever your answer is the "sons of God". Thank you.

missjo:
Genesis 6-1 The Message (MSG)
1 When the human race began to increase, with more and more daughters being born, the sons of God (fatherhood) noticed that the daughters of men were beautiful. They looked them over and picked out wives for themselves.

Erh now, so why are you finding it difficult to tell me when specifically did God start being a Father missjo, hmm? Tell me when or just throw in the towel and say you dont know abi.

missjo:
Genesis 6:4 New Living Translation
In those days, and for some time after, giant Nephilites lived on the earth, for whenever the sons of God had intercourse with women, they gave birth to children who became the heroes and famous warriors of ancient times.

1/ Who, for crying out loud are the sons of God?
2/ Where in a way that is exact and clear does the Bible call the answer you gave in #1 above sons of God please

missjo:
As i said before, God's fatherhood has always been from before the beginning,

When before the beginning did God's Fatherhood start missjo?

missjo:
but since the bible begins with the Genesis account of creation, those are verses which reference his fatherhood.

What are the verses? Provide them, let's peer review them together now and see?

missjo:
This is the answer to your question in case you missed it.

Oh, that really takes the biscuit. I think you are having a laugh at my expense, right?

missjo:
Apologies for the delayed response.

I don't know why I used to call you misssjojo instead of missjo. Anyway I've managed to correct myself on that. Hey don't worry about delayed response.

missjo:
The fatherhood of God has always been, continues to, and will always be.

You haven't answered the thrust of my question missjo and that is when, as in, at what point or moment did God start being a Father. Don't forget your backing scripture to support and validate your answer lol.

missjo:
The bible talks about God's authority from the creation story in Genesis.
However before this, there was always God as a father (authority) before the beginning as we know it.

Authority doesn't necessarily equate to fatherhood missjo. God wielded authority long before He ever became a Father now, so what are you trying to pull here with this lame and weak comment, hmm?

Is God the Father of animals, is He the Father of mountains, is He the Father of fishes? Yeah you are getting the drift

missjo:
Isaiah 14:12 King James Version (KJV)
12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

Isaiah in the previous verses before this was prophesying about the second coming right until verse 12 here and lasting till verse 14, where the writer suddenly switches to talking about his rebellion which happened long before creation. This vision is through the holy spirit from God, it is not Isaiah himself talking directly to Lucifer but the spirit ministering through him the voice of God.

What are you driving at with "son of morning" huh? Why have you emboldened "son of morning"? What point are you making with the son and morning? Who and/or what is the morning?

missjo:
In effect, God has referred to himself as the father of all things by calling Lucifer the son of the morning.
There cannot be a son without a father.

Is the m in that morning capitalised at all, as in, is it in upper case M, hmm? I am just asking ni ooo, missjo, as it would be in your good stead if it is, don't you think, hmm? Eisegesis tsk, tsk, tsk, tsk, hmm, be careful of that.

missjo:
John 5:36-37 King James Version (KJV)
36 But I have greater witness than that of John: for the works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me.
37 And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape.

So? What's wrong in One sending Himself?

missjo:
Jesus has always been from before the beginning. Here he is speaking of him who sent him and called him father.

1/ What was Jesus from this very beginning, before being Jesus, hmm?
2/ Is there anything wrong in God sending Himself an errand to earth, hmm?
3/ Technically speaking who and what would you call the person who sent to earth, the one called Jesus Christ, hmm?

missjo:
Jesus did not automatically become a son when he took human form, He has always been so as is Lucifer and the angels.

I laugh out in Greek at your poor pretexting with scripture

missjo:
The other we talked about the Nephilim. They were the offspring of the sons of God (fatherhood) breeding with the daughters of men

missjo, please show me the verse(s) were the Nephilim in the Bible are outrightly mentioned to be sons of God.

If you develop the habit of correctly and properly answering questions asked you, if you do not duck and dive from my series of questioning, you'll then soon will change your tune and eat your words about the Nephilim being the sons of God. Lol

It would have gone a long way, iff you had correctly answered when God started being a Father

ichuka:
Why, in God’s plan of redemption, must Christ be both God and man at the same time?

JMAN05:
There is nothing like that my dear. Whoever said so is the Antichrist. 1jhn 2:21-22.

There is a Father and a son. Trinity denies that by saying God is the father and the son is the father too. They say father and son are the same. Antichrist.

JMAN05, are you saying it is hard and something impossible for God to do as in exist and being the Father and the Son at the same time, hmm?

gobuchinny:
I'm telling you brother. I have read that book twice and it still amazes me how the book encompasses genesis to revelation. I get a godly fear whenever I read it. Because it shows how great God is. You begin to wonder if it was written after the death of Christ but then you remember its Enoch

Have you read Otem's series on Nairaland at all, hmm?

gobuchinny:
The 7th from Adam .

I like how you too found it that funny that Enoch is the 7th from Adam

gobuchinny:
It speaks of everything. From the forming of the nation of Israel, the destruction of the temple, the birth of Christ, His death and glory, the 2nd coming and then judgement of The first stars that fell(satan)and the second stars that fell and corrupted the earth and judgement of sinners. We are at the end times. The very end of times. We must be vigilant for the hour is come for the Son of man to be glorified. Amen

Otem's series gives the The Book of Enoch a good run for its money. Shame Otum doesn't get the credit he deserves for over imaginative work like this accursed Book of Enoch does. Oh well.

EMILO2STAY:
what is the meaning of this, do you want to start an argument this morning?

You can take it as you want it my dear friend
What a wanton display of unrestrained ingratitude

EMILO2STAY:
I copied and pasted this with Nokia n96 symbian phone.

Is a Nokia n96 symbian phone not good enough or not capable to make content copied easily readable without needing to employ too much effort ni? Is that what you're saying? The phone is at fault, hmm?

ichuka:
Thanks bro lol.

To answer your question I will jus add to what missjo has said. she spoke about the covering of sin by animal skin in Genesis by God but let's look at the offense itself.

Just as I previously asked missjo, where in the text did you read that God killed an animal to provide raw material to make coats of skins covering, hmmm? Or that is what you learned isnt it. Right?

I laughed when kkins25 counter asked with "where in the bible did it say that God did not use animal hide?" After they lost their cloth of righteousness, the skin we currently have is what God made in Genesis 3:21 to clothe and cover them up with

ichuka:
God’s works issue from God’s throne, God’s throne is established upon authority. All things have been created by the authority of God, and all laws on earth are held together through authority. Hence, the Bible says that God upholds all things by the word, which is of His authority (Heb. 1:3b). It does not say that God upholds all things by His power. God’s authority represents God Himself; God’s power only represents God’s works. It is easy to be forgiven of sin against God’s power, but it is not that easy to be forgiven of sin against God’s authority, because sinning against God’s authority is sinning against God Himself. Sinning/offense against your brother you might be forgiven easily.but an offense against the Queen/Prime minister of London might result to one losing his life.and the bible says that LIFE IS IN THE BLOOD. Leviticus 17:14
Sin against God is a sin against all and what He stands for.and God said that the price for sin against Him is death.

Of course, you would know, I'll pull you up on this. You cant just make a passing "LIFE IS IN THE BLOOD" comment just like that, without being ready and prepared to, in details, explain what "LIFE IS IN THE BLOOD" means. Even tell why and how this can be.

ichuka:
Regarding why Jesus is both God and Man?
I thought I explain that earlier.but let's look at Galatains 3:20 DEEPLY.' Now a mediator does not mediate for one only, but God is one.!!
That's the Mediator, God and man ARE ONE!!
He that's offended is God, if there's a mediator He is God and the offender is also God.
GOD IS ONE!

I am sorry, I dont see the connection and/or relevance of Galatains 3:20 to any of this.
Also how is "the offender is also God" sic

oaroloye:
SHALOM!

You need to learn HTML: it is invaluable.

EMILO2STAY, ... and its not difficult

HTML Tutorial - W3Schools
https://www.w3schools.com

HTML Tutorial: Learn HTML For Free | Codecademy
https://www.codecademy.com/learn/learn-html

In just 7 hours, learn the basics of HTML5 and start building & editing web pages. ... You will learn all the common HTML tags used to structure HTML pages

oaroloye:
In Forum lingo, what you have done is called "BLOCK-OF-TEXT," and it is usually replied with the abbreviation, TLDR- that is, "TOO LONG, DIDN'T READ."

Whom do you expect to be so conscientious to bother to try to read such an ugly essay?

YOU KNOW THAT A TRUE CHRISTIAN, OR OTHER PERSON WHO HAS ANY INTEREST IN THE SUBJECT, WOULD NOT CARE ABOUT HOW POORLY YOUR POST WAS FORMATTED, BUT TAKE THE TIME TO READ IT, ANYWAY, OUT OF RESPECT FOR THE AUTHOR, THE EFFORT OF THE AUTHOR, THE INTERESTINGNESS OF THE SUBJECT, AND THE IMPORTANCE OF THE SUBJECT.

That everyone has ignored your Post for SIX YEARS shows the fake immature, unworthy nature of people on this forum, in particular, and this country in general.

It is a certainty that many of the contributors to this Forum are among those "Whooping and Hollering" "HOLY GHOST FIRE! HOLY GHOST FIRE!" in Church, but It has no application in their personal lives.

It has not made them better Christians.

It has not increased their love for God, the Things of His Kingdom, nor for their Neighbours and Strangers.

I was able to reformat your Posts on my Phone, easily. Unfortunately, I had to read everything.

Plagiarization is rude.

Most especially when it represents Oyinbo pompous Cessationalistic Theology.

That it was so easy to correct (I knew that it would be, as soon as I saw it,) tells me that you never even tried.

As I read the Post, I saw that it was a straight "COPY & PASTE" plagiarization transplanted from some Oyinbo monologue, that was consistent with Roman Catholic Theology.

That you found nothing to add to this heap of garbage for six years implies a complete lack of interest in the topic, and that you were ordered by Owners to write it

You must not understand the seriousness of "TAKING THE NAME OF THE LORD IN VAIN," and "BLASPHEMY AGAINST THE HOLY GHOST."

It is well.

They've mismatched prophet Elijah's 2 Kings 1:10,12,14 and 1 Kings 18:21-41 plus the disciples James and John's Luke 9:54 with that Acts 2:3 where people saw the Holy Spirit/Ghost physically showing as tongues like flames of fire, and arranging themselves so that one came to rest on each believer present in the upper room on that pentecost eventful day to make a misguided doctrine out of

EMILO2STAY:
this was something i stumbled upon while surfing the net back then thought it was interesting, I just copied and pasted it here.

IS THERE ANYTHING LIKE HOLY GHOST FIRE IN THE BIBLE?
https://www.mountaingks.org/is-there-anything-like-holy-ghost-fire-in-the-bible-2/

One doesnt have to be a rocket scientist, to see from the above pasted weblink, that its content were posted and pasted here without crediting who painstakingly wrote the original article, it is someone else's intellectual property but you not only copied and pasted it here, word for word exactly and without any changes, you also made a right dog's dinner mess of left aligning the text into a long page, requiring this scrolling down, that never ends to read the post and/or it made sense of understanding it, be impossible.

The internet never forgets and so contributors, if they have done a "COPY & PASTE" plagiarization, as in meaning, they posted works without giving the website links or acknowledging the author, are soon found out to and rightly so, get vilified for the plagiarism, just like as oaroloye has done to you.

So, EMILO2STAY, when next you stumble upon something while surfing the internet that you think it's compellingly enough to want to share it with others, please give credit to the author or source by including its website link, as done above there for you.

nijabazaar:
hmmmm.....
but if it is such an important book with lots of info , i mean terribly good info about God....why the relegation?
Are they trying to hide something from the common man? or is it, that the knowledge or context therein is too difficult for people to understand? I mean, if the Book of daniel (which i think is perplexing) and the Book of Revelation ( which is just downright Horror) is included why not Book of Enouch?

Suspect33:
lol revelation is horror? , it's hope for the bride of Christ

What nijabazaar doesnt seem to know about the The book of Enoch and its other variants, is that they are best one after the other flushed down the toilet, where they belong. If you start to read the accursed book with sense wiseness, you won't last five minutes into reading the book, before you'll in a cringeworthy manner shove it away, from finding the content, being ludicrous and a waste of even idle time.

jamesid29:
It is well.

It has to be well since he is the only one here who is correct and/or quite confident that his connections are correct. It is well, all he "can do is offer these helps, warnings, and corrections", sic.

Danpersie31:
If we read through Genesis and Hebrews 7, the description of Melchizedek was just so so highly esteemed that he was said to be without beginning or end. He was regarded to as the king of righteousness and king of peace . That even Jesus was made in his order .

So please, I really want to know, who is Melchizedek?

MuttleyLaff:
Tithing originated from a Mesopotamia practice that prevailed pre and post the Abraham's living days. Abraham paid tithe after winning a fighting battle over four kings. The practice and onus was upon the victor of such or any battle/war to give a tenth of the spoils of war to a reputable priest cum ruler of his/her choice. Abraham decided that Melchizedek is his choice, so paid the tenth/tithe to him, received a blessing, and the rest of the story is now history.

Melchizedek was a ruler cum priest of the Most God, but didn't know God same way Abraham did or have the same kind of relationship Abraham had with God. This is evidenced on how Abraham corrected Melchizedek after he misaddressed God

"No one knows anything about Melchizedek's father, mother, or ancestors.
No one knows when he was born or when he died. Like the Son of God, Melchizedek continues to be a priest forever."
- Hebrews 7:3

Danpersie31, Melchizedek was no more and no less a human being just as like you and I are.

Melchizedek, as seen from the above quote, taken from a comment made on another thread was a reputable earthly human king and at the same time a priest

What the Bible, with the phrase "... without beginning or end ..." in relation to Melchizedek meant, is that much of Melchizedek's life, in terms of his birth and/or death is shrouded in mystery, meaning that no one knew when he was given birth to and no one knew when died, so the reason, though of course, he was given birth to and died, he still, is said to be one "... without beginning or end ..." all because of the absence and lack of recorded genealogical recorded data about him. It is this particular part and fact about Melchizedek, that Hebrews 7:3 was capturing and mentioning to draw attention to.