₦airaland Forum

brocab:
I am also a brother in Christ
-but you don't know me-well enough to be my keeper?
I am a anti tither-petro1 is a tither, which means we both don't have anything in common

Here is what to do:
Do you see the search button at the very top of this page?
1/ Type in "muttleylaff tither" without the inverted commas, into the long field box that's in front of the search button
2/ Click the search button, after typing in the search string "muttleylaff tither" into the long field box
3/ You will see results for the search of "muttleylaff tither"
4/ Now, come back, to tell, after typing in the search string using "muttleylaff tither"
to say what you found out about whether you and I have anything like about tithe, in common
5/ Take particular interest, in the fourth result with MuttleyLaff as the mention
(i.e. MuttleyLaff: 10:00am On Dec 21, 2017)

brocab:
I couldn't be his keeper-petro1 and I speak of two different gospels
-but you are his keeper
-you practice what he practices
-I don't understand where you are coming from, concerning petro1 'are you in love with him?

I dont have to practise what he practices before being his keeper
I am in love with my neighbour
so means I am in love with Petra1, in love with you, in love with everyone.

johnw47:
Heb 1:5 
For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee?
And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?

mutt, heb 1 is showing that God never begat angels, they are not begotten sons, Christ is the only begotten Son of God,
that doesn't stop job etc. referring to angels as sons of God, no one refers to them as begotten sons of God

on a side note:
heb 1 also shows that Jesus was not a angel which some believe

Very good observation.
I am very grateful, that you're carefully reading and now given thoughts to what and how I type

johnw47:
Jas 1:17 
Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.

mutt, God is the Father of lights, that doesn't mean the morning stars and the sons of God in job 38 is a constellation and the sun and the moon, when the sun and the moon and the stars were not even created yet
 
Job 38:6  Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;
Job 38:7  When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

You keep saying when the sun and the moon and the stars were not even created yet
and I keep trying to veer you off that train or line of thought

The Job chapter 38-39 grilling of Job, wasnt done in accordance to a creation logical sequence
When Job was put on the spot, the intense questioning did not follow a strict order, it was done in a haphazard fashion

It wasnt where were you when sun and the moon and the stars created
but rather where were you the when the stars sang and the sun and the moon shouted

johnw47:
from another post:
mutt, Jesus could have had the stones cheer if the people didn't,
that also doesn't mean the sun moon and stars were singing and shouting in job 38, oh duh

Luk_19:40 
And he answered and said unto them,
I tell you that, if these should hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out.

I can see with the strikeout that, its true that old habits die hard

johnw47:
i asked for facts, you haven't any
some here have given facts supported by scripture which you don't believe mutt

I cant be more fairer that this or can I

Thinking of this, it's you who isnt being fair here, you havent at all
All because you want to maintain "the sons of God" status quo that was fabricated

I have asked you to ask if you have any questions for me
or if you require sign-posted clarifications for simpler and easier understanding
on why and/or how "the morning stars" and "the sons of God", in Job 38:7, are metaphors, respectively for constellations & the sun and moon
but you've done nada about the two generous offers, instead you revert to groundless claims that I havent given any facts or facts supported by scripture

brocab:
Is Petro1 you? Having two names on this forum? It seems you know him to well, non tithers, know tithing doesn't make you rich, and yet you aren't sure if this is true or not, "tithing was never used to make anybody rich, tithing was used to help feed the needy.
If God steps on the Seine, then everything God said and done is for the needy-not for greedy men and women who caste of their first fruits.
Becoming rich through the process, defrauding the Church, "Sadly tithing these days isn't used the way God wanted it to be used..
Pastor's that defraud money of the Church-are lazy gluttons "criminals, to lazy to work, expecting a handout-expecting the Church to bless their evil thoughts.
But it seems petro1 is rich to your knowledge-but to my knowledge he is poor, in bible knowledge-if he knew the bible, he would obey the Word of God, he would know tithing and the rest of the other 612 laws was given to the Jews.
{Galatians 3:10} For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.
One law is as good as the other, but sadly the other 612 laws are the forgotten laws-do we stone our Children-and yet, the Church chooses which of the laws, that they should play it's part into their kingdom come, that should be done on their earth, and their rich heaven, "Give us this day our daily wage, and forgive us our sin..

I am sorry, no, I am not Petra1.
If you want to put it this way, you can say, I am my brother's keeper, and thats why or how I know well enough of him

Peacefullove:
So Hell is Grave ?

Hell in Luke 16 is also Sheol, does it mean the rich man is in Grave too?

Go check out Luke 14:7, Luke 15:3, Luke 16:1a etcetra
You'll see that Jesus, told quite a sizeable amount of parables, varying in total, between a number of 45 and 60.
They usually have a plethora of lessons and moral truth in them.

Luke 16 has a parable mention
As most parable usually are, a good amount of them, actually are a faithful representation of reality.

They at times are told, as a story, with verisimilitude characters.
The Rich man & Poor man named, Lazarus characters, in Luke 16 is an example of parables with verisimilitude characters.

How did/does Sheol exist?
To start with, contrary to popular belief/opinion,
there is not an interim place, called Hell or Hades where people, go to and languish in fiery torment, pending the white throne judgement
That is part of Greek mythology

Grave/tomb/sepulchre sites, in fact, are merely places of deposit for a corpse.
So, sheol, in an oversimplified or elementary manner, can be grave or has been referred as grave
Sheol, as a matter of fact, is the realm of the dead or departed souls

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

Well, until Jesus' parable in the New Testament, Luke 16:19-31 to be precise, sheol in general,
without necessarily distinguishing between righteous or unrighteous souls, has been the realm of the dead or abode of the dead.

From Jesus' parable, we got to know, that, Sheol, has two sections with a dividing gulf (i.e. a demarcation, if you'll like to call it that way)
The two sections were the Rich man section and Abraham's bosom section

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

budaatum:
So why worship God and God's son? Is that not two gods?
And why not Worship Mary too?

One cant worship Mary
as one dont worship human beings, animals, inanimate objects or celestial being aka angels.
One worships only God

budaatum:
Nine months carrying a whole son of God is not child's play I would have thought!

True, its not beans.
She actually was privileged
and that's why, on ocassions, she had been said, to be blessed among women.

johnw47:
mutt, you keep saying that
but you cannot explain why "the morning stars" in job 38:7 is a metaphor for constellations,
and you cannot explain why "all the sons of God" in job 38:7 is a metaphor for the sun and the moon

Saying, I cannot explain, is not true johnw47.

I can admit, I havent, in an excessive or forceful way, explained the why and/or how "the morning stars"
and "the sons of God", in Job 38:7, are metaphors, respectively for constellations & the sun and moon

For most people johnw47, this matter, is uncharted territory,
and so is part of why, you havent yet, in any noticeably large extent, read me, explain

Another good and valid reason, why you're yet to see me prominently explain, is that,
I am conscious of, what will be for some, a likely adverse effect, because of an exposure to information overload.

So, what I have, in terms of explaining, so far, done?

MuttleyLaff:
Angels, whether fallen or not, are never called sons of God

It was never intended to mean fallen angels nor confuse sons of God to be fallen angels

The term sons of God, right from the Book of Job have always been used for either two things.

Unfortunately, fallen angels aren't among the two things meant when the expression sons of God is used

"For to which of the angels did He ever say: "You are my Son; today I have begotten You"?
And again: "I will be to Him for a Father, and He will be to Me for a Son"?"
- Hebrews 1:5

Yes, there's fundamental problem
Actually there are loadsaproblems with that

Look at Hebrews 1:5 above, to see why there is/are problem(s) with that

You want the truth, don't you?
Well, then I'll give it to you, straight up.
Served ice cold, no shaking, no stirring.

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

Maamin, you and your "jagidijagan wuruwuru" to the answer ploy sha
So for your eyes, the imaginary angelic hosts, are altogether both morning stars and sons of God in Job 38:7?

Look brother, the sons of God, there, in Job 38:7, are the sun and the moon. No more, no less.
As for the morning stars (i.e. plural star), they, simply are a constellation

The constellation sang together, and the sun & moon shouted for joy

Do you know that God is called the Father of lights?
(i.e. Father of the constellation, the sun and the moon)

Context is King.
Re-read Job 38:7 in context, slowly and loudly,
then with God being the Father of lights in mind, come back with what you find

johnw47:
if you feel you have done so then copy and paste it again here, that's an easy thing for you to do

I have just did, with the immediate above.

Here are two another "copy and paste" below

MuttleyLaff:
Its bible talk, not my words.
The bible has never had angels, whether fallen or not, called sons of God.
That's an undeniable fact

Do you know what "jagidijagan wuruwuru" to the answer means?
Havent finished with you about Job 38:7, yet you're bringing in Job 1:6 and Job 2:1,
Job 1:6 and Job 2:1 are your other two out of the three champion verses, where you've misunderstood what "sons of God" means in them

Do you remember me telling you, that Job 38:7 verse, happens to be one out of your three stars and champion verses, you were waving in Mobilia's face?

I also say let's deal with the Job 38:7 verse first, before going on to the other two (i.e. Job 1:6 and Job 2:1)
You earlier said: "I'm also learning myself."
Well guess what. By the time, we are done, do you know what apart from learning, you'll be getting?
It’s called getting an education

Where and when were they called sons of God right before they fell?
Dont even try to quote here Job 1:6, Job 2:1 and/or Job 38:7 because you'll be making a grave mistake if you do

When that scripture was revealed, was the "g" in God too, not in upper case or lower case, was the word simply just "god"?

You capital S in sons of God, writing it as Sons of God, instead of sons of God
Why, what are you playing at writing it that way?
What not write God, with lower or small letter case g?

""For to which of the angels did He ever say:
"You are my Son; today I have begotten You"?
And again: "I will be to Him for a Father, and He will be to Me for a Son"?""
- Hebrews 1:5

Good that from Hebrews 1:5a, you accept that God never beget angels at any time
Now look at Hebrews 1:5b again, to see that God never had angels at any time be his son and/or Son

Laugh as best as you can
Meanwhile just remember that he who laughs last, laughs the best

"And God made two great lights;
the greater light to rule the day,
and the lesser light to rule the night:
he made the stars also"
- Genesis 1:16

You behaving like a drowning man desperately clutching at whatever reed/straw is in sight, he can grab on, to stay afloat

I earlier reminded you that Context is King

Job 38:7, is a good 30-plus chapters faraway from Job 1:6 and Job 2:1

The meaning of sons of God in Job 1:6 and Job 2:1, isnt similar to the meaning of sons of God in Job 38:7

Job 38:7 is about God taking Job to task,
asking him about what he knows about creation and where was he during creation
and particularly when the sun, moon and the constellation in the Genesis 1:16 account were present

Believers (i.e. sons of God) and the Son of God (i.e. Jesus Christ) are
but unfortunately not and never were angels.
Sorry.

MuttleyLaff:
It is embarrassing and disgraceful to see that you didnt properly read the post and subsequent ones like the one immediately above

It's either you in a quick or hasty manner read the post or you're being mischievious and so communicating lies
You dont need laughs from me because you are a real barrel of laughs the way you responded to the post

SMH, there is always going to be the one, that will be feeling uncomfortable, when truth is told

Please show from this thread or any other place,
where I said, anything about the constellation singing and sun & moon shouting, on a first day the earth was formed.

If you cant show where, if you are unable to produce anything,
then please, retract your false accusations
and tender public apologies accordingly

I know your accusations are unfounded
Now, you being one, that does understands the meaning of honour and integrity
can be expected to know the needful that needs to be done here

Dont let me down. I trust you to eat humble pie and swallow pride

Just a brotherly and friendly advice, next time, all it will take, will be a question(s) to clear matters up

If you had asked, I would have for free, told you that
it was at the end of creation that the singing and shouting together happened
and not the first day nor fourth day you've misundertood the post and Job 38:7 to be saying

johnw47:
keep your quotes to just the facts and backing scripture, leave out all the twisting

I don’t mind any, disputing my assertion that "the morning stars" and "the sons of God", in Job 38:7,
are metaphors, respectively for constellations & the sun and moon
Everyone is welcome to disagree with me as strongly as they come. I really don’t mind.

Afterall, if a crooked stick is before you, you need not explain how crooked it is.
Lay a straight one down by the side of it, and the work is well done.
Little by little, bit by bit, that is exactly what I'll be doing, presenting just facts and backed up with scripture verses.
I leave twisting for the contortionists and pros, who are the best at doing just that

I know what I bring to the table, so trust me when and/or if I say, I am not afraid to eat alone
I don't have a horse in this race, no ulterior motive etcetera

Lastly, I have to commend you for refraining yourself from using epithets in your comment
It’s not that hurling epithets about bothers me personally,
but it's always a breath of fresh air and good thing to read matured, courteous and polite clean posts.

Having said and done all this,
now, on the matter of "the morning stars" & "the sons of God", in Job 38:7,
being metaphors, respectively for constellations & the sun and moon
have you any questions for me or require sign-posted clarifications for simpler and easier understanding
on why and/or how "the morning stars" and "the sons of God", in Job 38:7, are metaphors, respectively for constellations & the sun and moon ?

budaatum:
That's much better. So, what would you say they could be?

It's not a matter of could
but is the case of what they are or were.

At the barest minimum, they are human beings,
just as much as you are or the next person is

budaatum:
Thanks for searching. Must say though, that I'm no clearer to understanding your stand on Genesis 6:1-2.

¹And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
² That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
- Genesis 6:1-2

In a sentence, my stand on Genesis 6:1-2, is that
the sons of God in the Genesis 6:2 aren't angels
nor are they the sun and moon metaphors used in Job 38:7

budaatum:
Below is a response to your explanation.

Perhaps I have the wrong one though. Could you post a link to your response to Maamin please?

Its torturous searching for it on mobile phone,
but since it's you, your wish is my command.
Man has to do what a man has to do.
I'll try, so watch this space

PS: Budaatum, here it is:
https://www.nairaland.com/4690508/woman-not-god/2#70830167

LordReed:
Because you are arguing with yourself.
You said sun and moon are the sons of God.
The sun and moon are celestial bodies therefore you must be regarding Satan as a celestial body was my summation.

The simple thing for you to do was state that Satan is not a celestial body instead you dishonestly claimed no difference between celestial body and celestial being.

Anyway I have had my fun and exposed your dishonesty.
Continue interpreting your fairytale anyway you like. LMFAO!

I said that in Job 38:7, the sons of God means the sun and the moon. I didn't at any point bring the devil into Job 38:7 nor ever insinuated that the devil was anywhere near or at the Job 38:7 narrative.

I am grateful to you admitting your summation and for having the wrong assumption.
I am also pleased you had fun at my expense.

I didn't have to state, and it's not the first time and certainly wouldn't be my last, in correcting typos, grammatical errors or switching to a better word without telling the original poster or shouting about it from the rooftops

budaatum:
Give me a short non-convoluted opinion on the following:

"When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them. The sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose."
Genesis 6:1-2 ESV

I already had Budaatum.
I did just that, on one of the earliest of my posts to Maamin on this thread.

budaatum:
I have a fault in my software that does not allow me to be distracted whilst involved in serious discourse.

I know it means you can't watch YouTube on the company laptop. Na joke ooo, na joke we dey ooo
On a more lighter note, I had to put it on loop last night

LordReed:
Look at him attempting to dribble himself again. You said:

You don't think there is a difference between celestial body and celestial being so why do you want to switch to calling the devil a celestial being instead of a celestial body? It's the same thing according to you. Yet you posted a definition that clearly expresses the difference.

You are dishonest, you want to do what you think it takes to win an argument, without considering that you denigrate your own self by being dishonest.

Remember you are speaking on your supernatural fairytale where liars get sent to hell. Better go and beg for forgiveness. LMFAO!

SMH, you pulled me up for using celestial being for the devil in my reply to your post, in where you used celestial body for the devil.
You condemned me with whatever foul language you were able to summon up, just because I called the devil a celestial being.

I have been exonerated from your accusations.
I prefer as a matter of choice and within a legitimate right to use celestial being for the devil.

You weren't pleased that I preferred to use celestial being than celestial body.

I consciously switched to celestial being because I knew celestial body is usually used for inanimate objects, like your moon, your sun, your etcetera
but you didn't know that and why your temper tantrums.

I am not having an argument with you,
so there isn't any argument for me to win

budaatum:
Sons of the God (Heb: bənê hāʼĕlōhîm, בני האלהים , literally: "Sons of the gods" ) is a phrase used in the Hebrew Bible and apocrypha. The phrase is also used in Kabbalah where Bene elohim are part of different Jewish angelic hierarchies.

I was going to post BibleStudy.org's view on this topic, until I read that "This phrase in Genesis 6:1 - 2 cannot be a reference to angels, either to those who are righteous or evil. The word of God does not contain even a hint that flesh and blood humans can somehow mate with spirit-composed beings!"

So Mary never 'mated' with spirits?
It's worth a look at though.

Firstly, bud did you have a reminisce moment with that Strafe tune?

Secondly, angels are asexual

Lastly, yes, Mary never mated with spirits.
It's just simply impossible for Mary to mate with spirits.

All, on here, saying angels slept with the daughters of men are slandering the angels and publicly displaying their ignorance

LordReed:
Thank you for further proving your dishonesty. Is there anywhere I wrote celestial being as a question to you in all the stuff you quoted? I clearly wrote celestial body but your dishonesty turned it into celestial being so you riff off your narrative. And you even did yourself in by providing a clear definition of the 2 terms that shows they are 2 different things.

Do yourself a favour and stop trying to be too clever by half.

You posted a comment referring to the devil as a celestial body
but when I responded to the comment referring to the the devil as a celestial being instead of using your choice "celestial body" all hell got loose and you got the hump, wailing like one whose dummy plaything got snatched.

You kept trying to fault me for using celestial being for the devil, as if I am wrong to do so.

Like I asked Maami, can the devil be called a celestial being or it can't be called a celestial being?
I dare you to answer the above question.

LordReed:
So I guess the devil is a celestial body since he gathered with the sons of God at the beginning of Job. LoLz!

MuttleyLaff:
I am impressed LordReed.
Would you know that you're correct in that, the devil, is a celestial being?

Of course, the devil is a celestial being.
The devil, as a matter of fact, has a free pass, and enters everywhere on earth with it, to always poke nose into other people's affairs & business'

This why, the devil in Job 2:1 and Job 3:6, was able to easily gather with the sons of God at the beginning of Job (i.e. Job 2:1 and Job 3:6)

The devil, doesnt to anywhere on earth, really need a green light before popping head in or around.

The devil has already been here and still is here on this thread, reading with keen interest and a rapt smile.

LordReed:
You like accusing me of twisting your words, yet here you are so blatantly twisting mine.
I wrote celestial body not celestial being.

The sun and moon are celestial bodies so if the sun and moon are the sons of God then the sons of God are celestial bodies.
If the sons of God gather then its a gathering of celestial bodies implying that Satan is a celestial body. LMFAO!

MuttleyLaff:
Is there a difference between celestial body and celestial being?
I didnt think so

I have never read nor come across a discombobulated comment such as this before
This is what happens, when someone tries too hard to sound half coherent

LordReed:
You are so fucking dishonest.
You are a liar if you say you don't know the difference in meaning between celestial body and celestial being.

And being caught out in fucking incoherence you project your silliness on to me.
You said the sun and moon are the sons of God
so how is the devil joining the congregation of the sun and moon aka sons of God and he is not a sun or moon?
What a dishonest person you've turned out to be.
Not that it's much of a surprise, having to do silly mental gymnastics will do that to a person.

MuttleyLaff:
Is the devil a celestial being or not?

Can you kindly and correctly add that, I said, metaphorically, the sons of God, in Job 38:7 are the sun and moon.

Please, calm down and take a gulp of slow deep breaths in and then slowly exhale out

You're mixing Job 1:6 and Job 2:1 together with Job 38:7

The sons of God, in Genesis 6:4, Job 1:6 and Job 2:1 means something entirely different to the sons of God in Job 38:7
and besides, the devil never followed or gathered with anyone or anything in Job 38:7

Job 38:7, is a good 30-plus chapters faraway from Job 1:6 and Job 2:1

The meaning of the sons of God in Job 1:6 and Job 2:1, isnt similar to the meaning of the sons of God in Job 38:7

Job 38:7 is about God taking Job to task,
asking him about what he knows about creation and where was he during creation
and particularly when the sun, moon and the constellation in the Genesis 1:16 account were present

I know I've earlier reminded Maamin, that Context is King, I now say the same to you that learn that: Context is King

Admit that I am wrong about what?

[s]I would ask you the same question I asked your new found ally:
Is the devil a celestial being or not a celestial being?

Are you familiar of the crab mentality?
You must do, you certainly do,
otherwise you wouldnt have taken sides and pull such a publicity stunt like this[/s].

LordReed:
Gosh you are so full of shit, I can't even deal.

MuttleyLaff:
No surprises.
As you were punching above your weight
Everything was bound to go over your head, so I am glad you wisely threw in the towel
Good riddance to bad rubbish
Now where is the air freshner when you need one?

LordReed:
LoL! You dishonest turd.
Spray the air fresher for your stinky arse. LMFAO!

MuttleyLaff:
The word "nephilim" is used interchangeably with the word giants

[img]https://s2/images/Screenshot-2018-9-17-celestial---Dictionary-Definition.png[/img]
cc Maamin
Who is not just a dishonest turd but also is, for this matter, a shameless ignorant one, now?
Who were you suggesting has a stinking arse erh?

0bakuso was hot on your heels, all over you like a rash
and I am now beginning to understand why on earth MrPresidente called you gaybriel

LordReed:
Gosh you are so dense.
Did you even read what you posted?
It clearly shows the difference between a celestial body and celestial being.
I guess gravity pulled all sense into your arse and that's where your thoughts originate from now. Stinking pile of shit.

As usual you've just pulled this bs out of your rear back
Take it! Receive sense!!

Havent even scratched the surface.
Havent even talked about, what the sons of God, in Genesis 6:4, Job 1:6 and Job 2:1, are yet
and already, it's the meaning of what the sons of God is, in just Job 38:7, that had become too much and demanding on you

What the sons of God, means in Job 38:7, isnt the same with, what it, means, in Genesis 6:4, Job 1:6 and Job 2:1

Why are people bent on conflating the sons of God in Job 38:7, with the sons of God, in Genesis 6:4, Job 1:6 and Job 2:1?

---

---

MuttleyLaff:
Angels, whether fallen or not, are never called sons of God

It was never intended to mean fallen angels nor confuse sons of God to be fallen angels

The term sons of God, right from the Book of Job have always been used for either two things.

Unfortunately, fallen angels aren't among the two things meant when the expression sons of God is used

johnw47:
novice mutt, i and others have shown in many posts that job 38:7 is angels, which you are blinded to,
believe job 38:7 and then i will show you other where the sons of God are angels

This is emotional blackmail.
If you're sure and confident about them, you wouldnt be forcing a "believe Job 38:7", on me first and before you presenting them

johnw47:
oh truly blinded one, "morning stars" - "sons of god" in job 38 are angels which a novice in God can see
[s]2Co_4:4  In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.[/s]

[s]you know very well i am talking of job 38, but i understand your twisting, and running away from the matters i show you[/s]
you sure are confused mutt, the sun moon and stars could not be singing and shouting at the beginning of the creation of the earth before they are created, but the angels could, and did
[s]yes i have noticed you defend your lies over a long haul, pages and pages of twisting
you cannot admit wrongs and your lies beget more lies[/s]

[s]you have been shown wrong by others to, but you cannot admit your wrongs on job 38
and pathetically run away from it in confusion
most everyone can see your rubbish and twisting and lies that you post
[size=6pt]Isa 3:24  And it shall come to pass, that instead of sweet smell there shall be stink;[/s]

Rubbing hands together

johnw47, I am consoled that at least one poster after realising I didnt say the sun, moon and stars were singing and shouting at the beginning of the creation, using good judgement and sense, decidedly typed:
"Need to check that last bold though"

From the goodness of your heart and for a novice in God, like me, to see,
please provide all other verses, apart from Job 38:7, that you confidently know, are where "the sons of God" are angels

johnw47:
mutt, you don't understand God's word

"When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy"

^^^ is describing angels

"Psa_18:6  In my distress I called upon the LORD, and cried unto my God:
he heard my voice out of his temple, and my cry came before him, even into his ears."

^^^ when the psalmist "called upon the Lord" and cried unto my God he wasn't calling and crying to two persons "the lord" and "my God"
but to the same one God who is called both "Lord" and "God"

just as the angels in Job 38 are called both "morning stars" and "sons of God"

It is easy for me to understand and sympathise with you.
You're caught up in this situation, where you're finding it hard to deal with and/or accept the truth.

1/ Have you spotted and seen the chief difference between Job 38:7 and your "brought to the rescue verse" Psalms 18:6?
2/ Are you saying the "morning stars" (i.e. constellation) and "sons of God" (i.e. sun and moon) cant with song and shout, praise God?
3/ Now, please tell,
from where & how did you infer that the "morning stars" & "the sons of God" are separately referring to angelic celestial beings?
4/ You do realise, you've held on to "Lord" and "God" in Psalms 18:6?
Why havent you swapped the words "Lord" and "God" to mean anything else other than God, a word originally in the verse?

johnw47:
not just at him, you asked him if he was a theology major, that was funny

and he replied: Psalm 119: 97-176, that was really funny

Laugh to your full delight
You may laugh now, thinking its funny
but just remember, he who laughs last, laughs the best

To me, this is a long haul, not a sprint

johnw47:
a few more:

just as "morning stars" and "sons of God" in job 38 are angels,
"Lord" and "God" in these verses are not two identies but one:

Psa_18:6 In my distress I called upon the LORD, and cried unto my God:

Psa_24:5 He shall receive the blessing from the LORD, and righteousness from the God of his salvation.

Psa_46:7 The LORD of hosts is with us; the God of Jacob is our refuge. Selah.

Give me three examples, like for and/or with "morning stars" and "sons of God" in them,
then we can talk and talk properly, it shall be.

You can see the consistent behaviour or treatment in using and maintaining the use of "Lord" and "God" in your 3 example?
Do the same with "morning stars" and "sons of God"

What do we have with Job 38:7?
We have, "morning stars" and "sons of God" fabricated to mean angels.
You cant even reproduce "morning stars" and "sons of God" like you've done doing with "Lord" and "God". SMH.

Mobilia:
Ok...maybe I overlooked the actual word.
Cause I think folks get caught up on the term "fallen ones"....
I thought it was a replacement for the word "giant".
I'm gonna look more into it.

The word "nephilim" is used interchangeably with the word giants

LordReed:
LoL! You dishonest turd.
Spray the air fresher for your stinky arse. LMFAO!

[img]https://s2/images/Screenshot-2018-9-17-celestial---Dictionary-Definition.png[/img]
cc Maamin
Who is not just a dishonest turd but also is, for this matter, a shameless ignorant one, now?
Who were you suggesting has a stinking arse erh?

0bakuso was hot on your heels, all over you like a rash
and I am now beginning to understand why on earth MrPresidente called you gaybriel

Mobilia:
MuttleyLaff,
Just curious, but is the term "nephilim" ever used in the scriptures?

Yeah, in black and white
Before the flood, after the flood and at when the Israelite spies, on recce, went to Canaan

LordReed:
Gosh you are so full of shit, I can't even deal.

No surprises.
As you were punching above your weight
Everything was bound to go over your head, so I am glad you wisely threw in the towel
Good riddance to bad rubbish
Now where is the air freshner when you need one?

Maamin:
On like you, I will rather find my ally in the true teaching of the scripture.

You're making caustic comments one after the other, so I've pretended not to read this one

Maamin:
You said no difference between celestial being and celestial body.
So I rolled out the definition of celestial body for you to see.

You're so incorrigible
How many times, do I have to remind you about the "Context is King" useful rule of thumb?

Do you know why I asked, if there's difference between celestial being and celestial body?
Am I wrong in referring to the devil as a celestial being instead of a celestial body?
Do you know why I consciously switched from using celestial body for the devil to using the phrase celestial being?

You are making yourself be a tool in the devil's workshop

Maamin:
Celestial being is completely different from celestial body.

OK, Maamin, what to you, is the devil?
Is the devil a celestial being or a celestial body?
Or depending on preference, can the devil, be either a celestial being or a celestial body?

LordReed:
You are so fucking dishonest.
You are a liar if you say you don't know the difference in meaning between celestial body and celestial being.

Is the devil a celestial being or not?

LordReed:
And being caught out in fucking incoherence you project your silliness on to me.
You said the sun and moon are the sons of God

Can you kindly and correctly add that, I said, metaphorically, the sons of God, in Job 38:7 are the sun and moon.

LordReed:
so how is the devil joining the congregation of the sun and moon aka sons of God
and he is not a sun or moon?
What a dishonest person you've turned out to be.
Not that it's much of a surprise, having to do silly mental gymnastics will do that to a person.

Please, calm down and take a gulp of slow deep breaths in and then slowly exhale out

You're mixing Job 1:6 and Job 2:1 together with Job 38:7

The sons of God, in Genesis 6:4, Job 1:6 and Job 2:1 means something entirely different to the sons of God in Job 38:7
and besides, the devil never followed or gathered with anyone or anything in Job 38:7

Job 38:7, is a good 30-plus chapters faraway from Job 1:6 and Job 2:1

The meaning of the sons of God in Job 1:6 and Job 2:1, isnt similar to the meaning of the sons of God in Job 38:7

Job 38:7 is about God taking Job to task,
asking him about what he knows about creation and where was he during creation
and particularly when the sun, moon and the constellation in the Genesis 1:16 account were present

I know I've earlier reminded Maamin, that Context is King, I now say the same to you that learn that: Context is King

Maamin:
Apart from that your position and understanding of this controversial topic is wrong.
One thing I noticed about you is that you don't like to admit that you are wrong.

Admit that I am wrong about what?

I would ask you the same question I asked your new found ally:
Is the devil a celestial being or not a celestial being?

Are you familiar of the crab mentality?
You must do, you certainly do,
otherwise you wouldnt have taken sides and pull such a publicity stunt like this.

LordReed:
You like accusing me of twisting your words, yet here you are so blatantly twisting mine.
I wrote celestial body not celestial being.

Is there a difference between celestial body and celestial being?
I didnt think so

LordReed:
The sun and moon are celestial bodies
so if the sun and moon are the sons of God then the sons of God are celestial bodies.
If the sons of God gather then its a gathering of celestial bodies implying that Satan is a celestial body. LMFAO!

I have never read nor come across a discombobulated comment such as this before
This is what happens, when someone tries too hard to sound half coherent

LordReed:
So I guess the devil is a celestial body since he gathered with the sons of God at the beginning of Job. LoLz!

I am impressed LordReed.
Would you know that you're correct in that, the devil, is a celestial being?

Of course, the devil is a celestial being.
The devil, as a matter of fact, has a free pass, and enters everywhere on earth with it, to always poke nose into other people's affairs & business'

This why, the devil in Job 2:1 and Job 3:6, was able to easily gather with the sons of God at the beginning of Job (i.e. Job 2:1 and Job 3:6)

The devil, doesnt to anywhere on earth, really need a green light before popping head in or around.

The devil has already been here and still is here on this thread, reading with keen interest and a rapt smile.

Maamin:
Why don't you try me...

Errr, Maamin.
Errr, I dont know, whether, I should Maamin

Maamin:
This still can't rule out the fact that they are angels.

It big time, does Maamin.
It does big time rule out, that "the sons of God" in Job 1:6 & Job 2:1, just as with Job 38:7, does not mean angelic celestial beings

Maamin:
The early Christians and Patriarchs believed taught this.
It is also clearly understood.

Please share how, where, when and most importantly, what the early believers and Patriarchs believed and taught.

What you learned and what was clearly understood, is an invented/manufactured truth Maamin.

LordReed:
Gosh you are so dishonest and disingenuous.

Calm down and stop getting your knickers in a knot

LordReed:
I didn't write gods, I wrote supernatural beings

Did you or did you not, at most times, if not all the time, periodically mention gods prior to typing about supernatural beings?

LordReed:
but you in your haste to be too clever by half,
put your foot in a big pile of shit which you want to wiggle out of now.
Stop dribbling your shadow you only mess yourself up

Yeah. Your imaginary pile of sh!t, right

LordReed:
LoL, why do you always wish me to be afraid?
Is that what you are, afraid?
That would explain a lot. LMFAO!

Is that what you read and how you read what I typed?
Wishing you to be afraid? SMH.

LordReed:
I don't believe in fairy tales beings.
If they ever present themselves I'll ask them for a selfie.

One can be standing, right now in front of you
but you wont necessarily see the being because you're a strongly bitter, twisted, cynical and high negatively charged up scoffer,
that's not yet ready to be unplugged, as you've become inured to your overcharged up negative energy

Instead of asking for selfie, you'll highly probably slump down, out of fright seeing them, with the camera thrown up in the air

You're living in darkness and instead of having a candle lit, to see,
all you do, is grope in the dark and curse the darkness. SMH

Mobilia:
Lol....what a nice re-welcome my brother....
Thanks for the support too....
I've been through it all since being on this website ....ventured off into other NL rooms... had a blast in some...and not so much so in others.
But I have come full circle back to where I originally started from on NL...the Religion section.
I'll still venture "out" sometimes..but stay in here mainly.
My skin has been re-thickened now for this almost 2 years of membership...
Don't think anything can shake me at this point....

Back in the day, I used to do that, I mean venturing out
The bible said go into the world, not the world come to you.
So I deliberately used to pop my head into the Sexuality and Romance sections

Soon enough, I come across monikers I've see in those sections, straying into and for awhile hanging about in the Religion section
They wouldnt ordinarily pop in to the Religion section by themselves
but must have clicked on my comments and this consequently must have led them to the Religion section

I think I need to be of my best behaviour now, with you on board
Nice having you back and around.

Mobilia:
Yes...I'm the former MzLady39/Ngo40.....remember?
Think back to the "three musketeers"
(Myself and 2 other brothers on the Sabbath issue)..

Yes that is him! I decided to use one of Nigeria's finest.....to make an illustration...
which I am gonna hopefully be able to further explain.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEmY0Edd39A
For the listening pleasure of my bud, the esteemed budaatum & loveable sister Mobilia
budaatum would remember the "♬ Ere kini, ẹ nse, labẹ igi...♪♫" intro beat

Aw no, its my long lost sister, my sister from another mother.
It's all water under the bridge now sister

I think I'll have to start behaving, with you being around and/or on the block now

Be prepared to be slated by those not ready for the truth
I've got your back anyway.
Any that mess with you, messes with me and will have me, with gloves off, to answer to.

Y'all want this party started right?
Y’all want this party started quickly right?
Set it off I suggest y'all
Mobilia let's get this party started...
Yeah! Yeah! Feels like something's about to jump off in here!

Mobilia:
Brother,
Why are you laughing at him?
That's a beautiful answer to the question I posed.
He answered with scrioturte...saying that he is a student of the Word.
I asked him the question cause the brother obviously goes deep into the Word.
He's trying....which says a whole lot.
Now he and I have disagreed in the past on some points of doctrine (and probably will in the future)....

I never knew we've crossed swords before Mobilia.
Are you sure, we've disagreed, in the past, with each other on some points?
Are you sure, you havent mistaken my moniker for another?

If this is true, then I am now filled with curiosity,
and so the obvious next to do, is to ask this question:
What are the "some points of doctrine"?

Mobilia:
and his "wit" and "humor" (sometimes inappropriately...don't bash me MuttleyLaff) is second to none.
However, those of us who claim Christianity need to discuss issues lovingly and respectfully.

Mobilia, please, please...
Please, I will crawl on broken glass for this.
Please, I am on my knees, begging you, give me, examples of the "sometimes inappropriately" instances

PS: Mobilia, isn't that Olajuwon aka "The Dream" in the pic above Shaq's

LordReed:
LoL! See why I said you like to dribble your own shadow?

You MuttleyLaff said:
If you could be so wrong in saying I believe in supernatural beings,
and consider the universe a result of the actions of supernatural beings
then I wonder what else you're wrong about and ill-informed in

LordReed:
You lot who believe in supernatural beings, who consider the universe a result of the actions of supernatural beings

You keep forgetting that: Context is King
Have you forgetten the above quoted from you?
That was the circumstance surrounding how my comment came about

LordReed:
And then confirm painter guy and his angels are supernatural beings. LoLz.
Are you experiencing memory failures or are you just dishonest? LMFAO!

SMH.
No, when you mentioned gods, it is obvious what you meant, along with your below reproduced comment:
"You lot who believe in supernatural beings, who consider the universe a result of the actions of supernatural beings"

LordReed:
There is no evidence of any such being or beings.
And if there was any evidence it wouldn't require belief as it would be apparent.

It is because it is beyond, scientific understanding and/or the laws of nature to believe

Besides, you'll be ashen-faced if not frightened to death, if you're to encounter, come across one or have the experience
Thats why the first thing, always been said, by the true and genuine ones to allay fears, is "Don't be afraid"