₦airaland Forum

judewrites:
📖 Genesis 6
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
¹ And 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.


The 'sons of God' in this scripture was a reference to a special set of 200 angels who presented themselves to God's service (Job 1: 6)

God appointed these angels known as the watchers to carefully observe the first race of mankind.

However the angels motivated by Samyaza their leader, betrayed God's trust by taking human wives and fathering giants with them known as the Nephilim.

Not just that, these angels taught mankind forbidden knowledge which provoked iniquity like weaponology, astrology, cosmetology, enchantments, magic, etc.

It was primarily because of the intermingling of these angels that God engulfed the earth with water: their offsprings (the Nephilim) polluted the earth with excessive bloodshed; they consumed animals, humans and eventually even themselves.

📖 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.
— Jude 1:6

Despite desperate pleas for forgiveness, God imprisoned these angels deep underneath the earth in absolute darkness awaiting the white throne judgement. (Revelations 20:11-15)

What initially prompted these angels was their lustful desire for beautiful women.

Today, as a result of looking lustfully at women, (especially through pornography) a lot of men have fallen into all kinds of sexual sin that brings divine judgement.

As a man, you should be careful how you look at a woman (and vice versa) as lust is equivalent to adultery. (Matthew 5:28)

God didn't spare these angels as they willingly chose to disobey Him notwithstanding the consequences. (2 Peter 2:4)

If we continually choose to disobey God especially in sexual misconduct, we might end up as these angels. God forbid 🙏.

The marriage bed was, is and will remain undefiled. (Hebrews 13:4)

(Culled from the book of Enoch)

False doctrine, angels did not sleep with daughters of men. No where in the bible were angels refered to as Sons of God. Please teach the correct doctrine as found in the scriptures.

judewrites:
Our physical minds can't fully comprehend spiritual things....

If God's WORD says it happened, who are we to question the Word of God?

God's word never said angels slept with women. It is a false addition by corrupt men. Please do not add or subtract from God's word. Never in the bible were angels refered to as the Sons of God.

judewrites:
It's was never written than satan tempted these angels...

They acted on their own volition!

It was first their leader who suggested it and offered to be the sole scapegoat if God punished them.

However they all took an oath and vowed to suffer together any punishment for their involvement with women.

You should write your own bible. None of these things are found in the scriptures. Please tell us your source.

MaxInDHouse:
Where did the Bible says WATCHERS got enticed by women?
Who are angels that left their dwelling places? Jude 1:6

It is funny, both of you are teaching strange doctrines not found in the bible yet you ask him to show you where in the bible did whatever happen. Please mention one bible verse from Genesis to Revelation where angels are called Sons of God.
Again what gender are angels. Did any of them also sleep with the men? Did they have hormones? How did they acquire a taste for women in particular?
This teaching is very foolish.

judewrites:
Thanks for your contribution.

But the sons of God in Genesis 6 refers to the watchers, a group of angels sent to observe mankind as at that time.

They choose to rebel against God by mixing with women, thus producing giants that were blood thirsty.

However, to this hour, a lot of demonic spirits still have sex with humans and produce Nephilim in the spiritual realm.

These Nephilim sometimes manifest physically as human beings, but there are not normal beings.

A lot of people today are Nephilim in disguise, but wearing human flesh!

Have you read the curse upon those who add their own teachings to God's word?

tctrills:
False doctrine, angels did not sleep with daughters of men. No where in the bible were angels refered to as Sons of God. Please teach the correct doctrine as found in the scriptures.

There are places where the context fits angelic beings. Job and Genesis comes to mind—Genesis 6:2, 6:4, Job 1:6, Job 2:1, and Job 38:7. You might have a preferred disposition to such verses. Let us know what you think.

tctrills:
You should write your own bible. None of these things are found in the scriptures. Please tell us your source.

Books of Enoch—1,2 and 3. It's considered apocryphal by protestants.

Gabrielshow24:
➜There are places where the context fits angelic beings. Job and Genesis comes to mind—Genesis 6:2, 6:4, Job 1:6, Job 2:1, and Job 38:7. You might have a preferred disposition to such verses. Let us know what you think.

First of all, none of the verses you referenced does anything of the sort you describe. Second, the description given of those regarded as angels is instead related to humans — beings from this earth and not beings of alien origins.

Kobojunkie:
First of all, none of the verses you referenced does anything of the sort you describe. Second, the description given of those regarded as angels is instead related to humans — beings from this earth and not beings of alien origins.

Well, I suppose women like you—oh, my bad, men like you—take trips upstairs to visit God directly 🤔? I bet you were there shouting for joy when He was drawing the circles of the deep and forming planets 😅.
Kobojunkie, while Genesis might leave room for debate, the rest is crystal clear—the ones involved weren’t even human!

Gabrielshow24:
➜Well, I suppose women like you—oh, my bad, men like you—take trips upstairs to visit God directly 🤔? I bet you were there shouting for joy when He was drawing the circles of the deep and forming planets 😅.
...., while Genesis might leave room for debate, the rest is crystal clear—the ones involved weren’t even human!

Stop rambling and try to focus! 😩😩

The mention in the book of Job, which you are attempting to add your delusions to, merely states, "... the day came for the Sons of God to meet the Lord." When Moses met the Lord, he did so here on earth. When Elijah met the Lord, he did not leave this planet. When the Israelites came in the presence of the Lord of Israel, they didn't have to hitch a spaceship up into the skies or need to leave this planet. What then gives you this bubble-brained idea that meeting the Lord of Israel required a trip upstairs?

Kobojunkie:
Stop rambling and try to focus! 😩😩

The mention in the book of Job, which you are attempting to add your delusions to, merely states, "... the day came for the Sons of God to meet the Lord." When Moses met the Lord, he did so here on earth. When Elijah met the Lord, he did not leave this planet. When the Israelites came in the presence of the Lord of Israel, they didn't have to hitch a spaceship up into the skies or need to leave this planet. What then gives you this bubble-brained idea that meeting the Lord of Israel required a trip upstairs?

Probably, you should finish that verse 😅. Your answer is there

Gabrielshow24:
Probably, you should finish that verse 😅. Your answer is there

. Why are you desperate to add your own words to what is clearly written in the book? 🥱🥱🥱

🥱🥱🥱 Oh, Kobojunkie… you do realize Job 1:6 didn’t say, “When the sons of Adam came before the LORD”, right? The Hebrew there is בְּנֵי הָאֱלֹהִים (b’nei ha’Elohim) — “sons of God,” not “sons of man.”
In the Tanakh, that phrase consistently refers to heavenly beings/angels (see Genesis 6:2, Psalm 29:1, Psalm 89:6) — unless you think Job was casually hosting a celestial PTA meeting for humans in heaven 🤔.
And please, dragging in earthly prophet encounters is like saying “because I met my governor at the market, therefore I must have attended the UN General Assembly.” Context matters.
The scene in Job 1:6 is clearly in the heavenly court — unless, of course, you’re suggesting farmers from Uz were regularly filing into God’s throne room for roll call 😅.

tctrills:
It is funny, both of you are teaching strange doctrines not found in the bible yet you ask him to show you where in the bible did whatever happen. Please mention one bible verse from Genesis to Revelation where angels are called Sons of God.
Again what gender are angels. Did any of them also sleep with the men? Did they have hormones? How did they acquire a taste for women in particular?
This teaching is very foolish.

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

The sons of God here refers to angels.

My friend, I am not forcing you to believe my teaching, if you don't believe, it's your cup of tea. It's a free world.

Besides, salvation is personal.

Don't push your opinion down people's throats.

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

The sons of God here refers to angels.

My friend, I am not forcing you to believe my teaching, if you don't believe, it's your cup of tea. It's a free world.

Besides, salvation is personal.

Don't push your opinion down people's throats.

Lol but you are the one preaching your opinion in place of the word of God.
In all the verses you presented, no where were angels called the sons of God.
So why are you intentionally teaching incorrect doctrine

Gabrielshow24:
Books of Enoch—1,2 and 3. It's considered apocryphal by protestants.

I am not a protestant and it is not in the bible we all agree upon so let's just say, this incident of angels having sex is only for protestants.
Now are angels men?
Do we also have gay angels?
We're there no female angels who got pregnant for men?
Why did angels stop coming down to have sex. Have they become better at resisting women?

Gabrielshow24:
There are places where the context fits angelic beings. Job and Genesis comes to mind—Genesis 6:2, 6:4, Job 1:6, Job 2:1, and Job 38:7. You might have a preferred disposition to such verses. Let us know what you think.

Not in any of these verses did the context fit angels. I don't think guesswork should be the standard for understanding scripture.
Just because the bible did not indicate who the Sons of God in these verses were doesn't mean we should guess and fill in the gap. As Christians we live by revelation not guesswork or the opinions of men.
It is an abomination to add to the word of God. We don't do that.

tctrills:
I am not a protestant and it is not in the bible we all agree upon so let's just say, this incident of angels having sex is only for protestants.
Now are angels men?
Do we also have gay angels?
We're there no female angels who got pregnant for men?
Why did angels stop coming down to have sex. Have they become better at resisting women?

You are reaching. While yet it happened doesn't mean it still occur. Likewise the bible doesn't give an unequivocal statement about Angels gender but most of them from scripture are all masculine-esque in nature! This negates your allusions.

Angels are not men, they are generally expressed as heavenly beings. Although, the term angel, in the form of messenger, can be used upon a man.

Angels are not gays and there are no accounts of female angels👀 in the bible. All angels are perceived as male and biblical writers depicted them that way!

tctrills:
Not in any of these verses did the context fit angels. I don't think guesswork should be the standard for understanding scripture.
Just because the bible did not indicate who the Sons of God in these verses were doesn't mean we should guess and fill in the gap. As Christians we live by revelation not guesswork or the opinions of men.
It is an abomination to add to the word of God. We don't do that.

Yes, it does fit as I have subtly shown earlier, especially with kobojunkie😅, regarding the context of them—Such context align with angels except you shouted for your joy when God was creating the earth🤔👀?

So yes, it's not a "fill in the gap" but a declarative statement that doesn't "fit" man.

Gabrielshow24:
➜Yes, it does fit as I have subtly shown earlier, especially with ....😅, regarding the context of them—Such context align with angels except you shouted for your joy when God was creating the earth🤔👀?
➜ So yes, it's not a "fill in the gap" but a declarative statement that doesn't "fit" man.

Job 1 vs 6-7 clearly shows they were referred to as Sons of Elohim. So, who is arguing sons of Adam with you?

2. Below are the verses you referenced. None of them contains any of the claims you made. So, again, what are you on about?

Kobojunkie:
Job 1 vs 6-7 clearly shows they were referred to as Sons of Elohim. So, who is arguing sons of Adam with you?

2. Below are the verses you referenced. None of them contains any of the claims you made. So, again, what are you on about?

You have become quite a bore, perhaps if you had highlighted the phrase "in the sky" under psalm 89:6, it would have given you the required context 😅. Apart from these, your rhetorical questions do not provide any meaningful rebuttal.

Also, that response was not on job1:6 but rather on job 38:7— "when the sons of God shouted for joy while the earth was being made". Such stratagem do not favor you, you are beginning to lose your edge.

When we are done with "the farmers of Uz answering roll calls in the court of heaven😅" then you can as well object to Job38:7🤨.

Gabrielshow24:
➜You have become quite a bore, perhaps if you had highlighted the phrase "in the sky" under psalm 89:6, it would have given you the required context 😅. Apart from these, your rhetorical questions do not provide any meaningful rebuttal.
➜Also, that response was not on job1:6 but rather on job 38:7— "when the sons of God shouted for joy while the earth was being made". Such stratagem do not favor you, you are beginning to lose your edge. When we are done with "the farmers of Uz answering roll calls in the court of heaven😅" then you can as well object to Job38:7🤨.

1. So, it does not make a difference to you that there are two different sentences contained in that particular verse; you would rather pretend a run-on or something?

2. Huh? Job 38 vs 5-8 does not refer to any other planet or a location other than the earth. Also, we know the Earth has no foundation or cornerstone. So, do we still go ahead to enforce a literal interpretation of what was written despite this to ensure it fits well with your particular religious delusion there? 🥱🥱🥱🥱

Kobojunkie:
1. So, it does not make a difference to you that there are two different sentences contained in that particular verse; you would rather pretend a run-on or something?

2. Huh? Job 38 vs 5-8 does not refer to any other planet or a location other than the earth. Also, we know the Earth has no foundation or cornerstone. So, do we still go ahead to enforce a literal interpretation of what was written despite this to ensure it fits well with your particular religious delusion there? 🥱🥱🥱🥱

There are related sentences there: the first about heaven, the second about the sons of the deities or sons of the mighty.

Your second point is tangential to the topic. We all know it's metaphorical but you seem to argue that farmers of Uz consistently or literally went up above to visit God😅— A very ludicrous stance.

Irrespective, be my guest and kindly tell us how you shouted for joy before you were born😁.

Gabrielshow24:
➜There are related sentences there: the first about heaven, the second about the sons of the deities or sons of the mighty.
➜Your second point is tangential to the topic. We all know it's metaphorical but you seem to argue that farmers of Uz consistently or literally went up above to visit God😅— A very ludicrous stance.
➜ Irrespective, be my guest and kindly tell us how you shouted for joy before you were born😁.

1. It is about heaven, yet without a single reference to this so-called heaven? And you followed this up by then claiming this non-existent reference to a heaven is where the sons of deities(the mighty/mighty men/gods) mentioned in the second sentence had to be located? 🥱🥱🥱

2. We all know it is metaphorical—seems a couple other figures of speech can be identified in that passage —, yet earlier you had insisted that, rather, it all had something to do with a heaven — another planet? 🥱🥱🥱

3. I see, so we are to impose a literal interpretation/conclusion on the statement suggesting morning stars and Sons of God shouted for Joy, abi?

Kobojunkie:
1. It is about heaven, yet without a single reference to this so-called heaven? And you followed this up by then claiming this non-existent reference to a heaven is where the sons of deities(the mighty/mighty men/gods) mentioned in the second sentence had to be located? 🥱🥱🥱

2. We all know it is metaphorical—seems a couple other figures of speech can be identified in that passage —, yet earlier you had insisted that, rather, it all had something to do with a heaven — another planet? 🥱🥱🥱

3. I see, so we are to impose a literal interpretation/conclusion on the statement suggesting morning stars and Sons of God shouted for Joy, abi?

That's quite wrong, I didn't assert such. You are conflating two different verses together and misrepresenting my statement in one for the other. As regards the Job 38:7. I didn't say such.

I mentioned heaven(court of heaven) in reference to Job1:6.The other mention of heaven I stated was regards psalm 89:6. I just stated it, I didn't draw any inference or make any deduction. You did that.

Also, your "rebuttal" fails as Job 38:5-8 highlights the Earth's creation with the mention of "sons of God".

I only pointed out the term [1] sons of deities to show that it's mostly depicted upon heavenly beings—Your allusion is far-fetched.

tctrills:
It is funny, both of you are teaching strange doctrines not found in the bible yet you ask him to show you where in the bible did whatever happen. Please mention one bible verse from Genesis to Revelation where angels are called Sons of God. Again what gender are angels. Did any of them also sleep with the men? Did they have hormones? How did they acquire a taste for women in particular? This teaching is very foolish.

I agreed with him that those sons of God are angels but since he doesn't want me to continue with him i quit and left the thread so now that you are here with him you can continue i hate aimless arguments if he doesn't have any group to present as those who share his beliefs there's no reason for me to continue engaging him my main purpose here is to direct interested ones to God's organization not myself.
Thanks for your time!

Gabrielshow24:
Yes, it does fit as I have subtly shown earlier, especially with kobojunkie😅, regarding the context of them—Such context align with angels except you shouted for your joy when God was creating the earth🤔👀?

So yes, it's not a "fill in the gap" but a declarative statement that doesn't "fit" man.

First, you have to show that angels are Sons of God in the first place but you have not. If you don't even know if angels are Sons of God how can you say they fit the profile?
The crazy thing here is that you are not depending on revelation but on guesswork. You are depending on anything you think fits. Human wisdom has never led to eternal truths. Using your methods, a 100 things will go wrong.
In summary, learn to depend on revelation and not what you think fits or not.

Gabrielshow24:
You are reaching. While yet it happened doesn't mean it still occur. Likewise the bible doesn't give an unequivocal statement about Angels gender but most of them from scripture are all masculine-esque in nature! This negates your allusions.

Angels are not men, they are generally expressed as heavenly beings. Although, the term angel, in the form of messenger, can be used upon a man.

Angels are not gays and there are no accounts of female angels👀 in the bible. All angels are perceived as male and biblical writers depicted them that way!

Again you said many things you don't know for sure. You claim that most angels are male, how do you know that? Guesswork?
Now you also claim to know the sexual orientation of angels. You said they are not gay and they have a thing for women meaning that you think they are straight. Again you depend on guesswork.
Lastly, if angels in heaven have an urge to have sex and we are taught that in heaven, angels are not married, that means from eternity to eternity, angels, (I mean the faithful ones) endure an unfulfilled desire.
Why will God have Sons, give them sex organs, give them a desire for sex and yet prohibit them eternally from sex. What is the use and need of their sex drive and hunger.
From your believe, it shows that in heaven there is no fullness of joy at least for angels because they have unfulfilled desires.
Does the theory even make sense?
Sir clearly, angels don't fit your profile.

Note
You don't know enough about angels to declare that most are male. In the entire bible, only 2 angels were named. Michael and Gabriel. That's not enough material to work with when making an emphatic declaration that most angels are male.

tctrills:
First, you have to show that angels are Sons of God in the first place but you have not. If you don't even know if angels are Sons of God how can you say they fit the profile?
The crazy thing here is that you are not depending on revelation but on guesswork. You are depending on anything you think fits. Human wisdom has never led to eternal truths. Using your methods, a 100 things will go wrong.
In summary, learn to depend on revelation and not what you think fits or not.

I am not depending on anything fits. Like I have said the bible is not unequivocal on angels. There are just glimpses of them here and there. The verses of "sons of God" have a context that doesn't fit man. The subjects or objects depending on the verse fit heavenly beings. Also, from scriptures angels/heavenly beings are called morning stars. The scriptural data suggests such an inference. Not me, scriptures. I am not making anything fit but rather relying on the bible to explain itself. Even from the tanakh, Jewish commentaries, sons of God were mostly used for angels, Jesus was crucified because he called himself a son of God🤔. Historical context along Jewish style and literature warrants such an interpretation.

tctrills:
Again you said many things you don't know for sure. You claim that most angels are male, how do you know that? Guesswork?
Now you also claim to know the sexual orientation of angels. You said they are not gay and they have a thing for women meaning that you think they are straight. Again you depend on guesswork.
Lastly, if angels in heaven have an urge to have sex and we are taught that in heaven, angels are not married, that means from eternity to eternity, angels, (I mean the faithful ones) endure an unfulfilled desire.
Why will God have Sons, give them sex organs, give them a desire for sex and yet prohibit them eternally from sex. What is the use and need of their sex drive and hunger.
From your believe, it shows that in heaven there is no fullness of joy at least for angels because they have unfulfilled desires.
Does the theory even make sense?
Sir clearly, angels don't fit your profile.

Note
You don't know enough about angels to declare that most are male. In the entire bible, only 2 angels were named. Michael and Gabriel. That's not enough material to work with when making an emphatic declaration that most angels are male.

Like I said before there's no sufficient data to conclude on this and biblical style only writes on important things, not extras.

Knowing such details is not important to salvation, it just brings clarity. Jesus said there are so many things(heavenly) that he can't tell them(disciples) because even earthly things they have not known. I am typing quickly hence my write-up will feel rushed...bear with me, by evening I should have proper time to address your concerns.

The same questions you posed can be said of men😅. I think Jesus made it clear that all must deny themselves, context in the case is man, I do believe such wisdom is applicable to Angels hence the more reason why the bible highlighted "fallen angels" that went out of their way. Overall, he that hath God has everything and his fulfilled.

Gabrielshow24:
➜That's quite wrong, I didn't assert such. You are conflating two different verses together and misrepresenting my statement in one for the other.
➜As regards the Job 38:7. I didn't say such. I mentioned heaven(court of heaven) in reference to Job 1:6. The other mention of heaven I stated was regards psalm 89:6. I just stated it, I didn't draw any inference or make any deduction. You did that.
➜ Also, your "rebuttal" fails as Job 38:5-8 highlights the Earth's creation with the mention of "sons of God". I only pointed out the term [1] sons of deities to show that it's mostly depicted upon heavenly beings—Your allusion is far-fetched.

1. The following was not your bullsheet response from earlier?

Gabrielshow24:
There are related sentences there: the first about heaven, the second about the sons of the deities or sons of the mighty.

....

Gabrielshow24:
🥱🥱🥱 Oh, … you do realize[b] Job 1:6[/b] didn’t say, “When the sons of Adam came before the LORD”, right? The Hebrew there is בְּנֵי הָאֱלֹהִים (b’nei ha’Elohim) — “sons of God,” not “sons of man.” In the Tanakh, that phrase consistently refers to heavenly beings/angels (see Genesis 6:2, Psalm 29:1, Psalm 89:6) — unless you think Job was casually hosting a celestial PTA meeting for humans in heaven 🤔.

2. There was no other planet/alien space mentioned in Job 1vs 6 ; your so-called "court of heaven" is not recorded to have taken place on another planet or space outside of the earth.

3. Nonsense! Consult your previous statement

Gabrielshow24:
. Your second point is tangential to the topic. We all know it's metaphorical .

You claimed that the references to the foundation and cornerstones of the Earth were, according to you, metaphorical, so how were you able to jump to the conclusion that it was all about the Earth's creation(not even the beginning of creation that is documented in the Book of Genesis)?