₦airaland Forum

Now, “offspring” in the sense that we originate from God — unless you want to absurdly suggest that God slept with your mother to father you? You know that’s ridiculous. This intellectual dishonesty — switching between literal and metaphorical without any care for context — is exactly the problem. Offspring can mean both literal and metaphorical. Only Jesus and Adam can claim a literal physical origination from God; the rest of us are metaphorical sons of God by adoption. Yes, you could argue our spirits come from God, but our substance is flesh and blood. That fits “offspring by origination.” It’s interpretations like yours — blurring literal and metaphorical at will — that breed confusion and heresy.
You agree that our spirits come from him, and He is literally the Father of our spirits. And our spirits were with Him before our life on earth? Then you already agree 90% with me. If all these are true, then why do you feel our spirits are not the morning stars that shouted for Joy? Or don't you agree that our spirits came from Him and He is literally the Father of our spirits?

I haven’t destroyed my stance because no matter what mental gymnastics you perform to try and insert “man” into that category, you’ll fail miserably. Your last refuge is categorical classification — suggesting it could be elders — which is pointless because it still fits heavenly beings, and scripture groups such beings under the general term malaikim. Case closed. Argue with your own Bible.

So now you agree that Job could be talking about the Elders and not the angels, right? You never had an argument in the first place.

The apostles didn’t “give up” anything — they embraced Christ as Messiah and correctly interpreted that He was the man Jesus, while others rejected Him. They understood the eternal kingdom of God was not of this world, whereas the Jews wanted a political one. Jesus Himself said not one jot or tittle would pass from the Law. We are under the law of grace, not the Old Testament’s ceremonial code — but the apostles (Jews themselves) understood the context far better than you, and you won’t out-interpret them. Case closed. Argue with history and your Bible.

The apostles understood the Old Testament better than the Jews.

You’ve dodged several of my questions, along with multiple verses that dismantle your premise. You’ll happily use inference to defend the Trinity when it’s not explicitly stated, but suddenly demand exact wording when it comes to “sons of God” being angelic beings. Convenient, isn’t it?

Please, I am not asking for the exact word. Give me synonyms. Show from the bible, the Morning Star or Son of God means angel. Point to one angel that was called a Son of God. Please, I don't need exact words. Just show where it was indicated that it was the angel's Job spoke about and not the spirit of man or the elders or cherubim.
An angel in Revelation appeared with a brightness that dwarfed the sun, yet you claim such an angel cannot be a “morning star.” Basic science tells you that only greater stars outshine the sun. “Morning star” is an expression describing the intense brightness of angels — you don’t need an explicit verse to grasp the metaphor. Angels are already called stars, so adding “morning” or “evening” is simply a descriptive flourish. The point is obvious. If you still can’t see it, that’s your willful blindness, not a lack of evidence.
Your point is that because He was brighter than the sun, He is the morning star. And now, you don't care if morning is removed because that doesn't go well with your opinion. Star will just do for you.
I dey see you

Gabrielshow24:
Even atheists understand sonship by adoption, brother tctrills—what’s your excuse? 👀

You are proving that you and atheists. I see.

Quote me, alright.
Wrong! Scripture directly implies this principle for Adam, and the same for Jesus. Things beget after their own kind; hence Adam and Jesus, both directly originated from God, were called “sons of God.” The sons of Seth applied the same simple reasoning: “God made our grandfather Adam, therefore God indirectly made us.” This emphasizes origination, not nature.

Again you speak your own words.
Other passages show sonship being imputed through action (faith, obedience). That’s the Bible’s standpoint, not mine. Angels also have direct origination from God — He formed them just as He formed Adam. They have no source apart from Him. You and I, however, have physical origination from our earthly fathers. Our sonship to God is through adoption. Simple.

The House of Israel was His sons, even when they sin.
Isaiah 50:1 Thus saith the LORD, Where is the bill of your mother's divorcement, whom I have put away? or which of my creditors is it to whom I have sold you? Behold, for your iniquities have ye sold yourselves, and for your transgressions is your mother put away.

I don’t set the rules — context determines interpretation. I have no direct progeny from God, even if God made my spirit. Before my earthly life, I had no conscious will or recollection of any praiseful event. My physical origination comes from my father. I have no other conscious life to look back on. That alone destroys your claim — one must be conscious to praise. Jesus remembered His pre-earthly existence with God; He didn’t dismiss it with, “Well, I can’t remember what I ate last month.” Your argument collapses under that weight — because you’re arguing for a pre-conscious life you’ve never been aware of, let alone one where you were a “morning star.
Your point is that you don't remember never happened.


Lucifer is a morning star, then he must be the same as Jesus.” Do you see the absurdity? That’s the kind of flawed equivalence your reasoning produces.
No question about Lucifer except that the bible did not call him an angel. You did. Is Jesus also an angel?

I’ve read the Bible — it doesn’t teach what you’re asserting. It presents us as seeds awaiting harvest (Matthew 13:24–29, interpreted in vv. 37–38). We were not “travellers,” but God’s seed sown physically, later becoming conscious of our heritage. The context here is physical, not an appeal to some abstract “pilgrim” definition as if we came from some prior land. This is why I’ve told you before — we were kept in God’s storehouses, awaiting the time to be sown.
Wrong, we are strangers and pilgrims on the earth. There is nothing abstract about the Earth not being our origin.

Finally, I already stated that man was formed in Genesis 2 after his creation in Genesis 1. Your attempt to twist this is almost comedic. Genesis 1 plainly shows man as the last-born of God’s creation; Genesis 2 confirms that plants were not yet in existence because man had not been created to till the ground. When you read both through the lens of Job 38, it’s laughable to claim it was man shouting for joy in heaven. Let alone you can't even remember such an event.

Wrong again. Genesis only talks about the physical creation of our bodies. It never talks about how or when our spirits came into existence. We read other passages to learn that
Ephesians 1:4 (KJV) – “According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world. I was chosen before the foundations of the earth. Y/ou dont choose what doent exist.
1 Peter 2:11 “Dearly beloved, I beseech you as strangers and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts…”
Again shows we are temporary residents here.

They are not irrelevant — you’re the one claiming that! They do not, in any way, reinforce your idea that the “sons” in Job 38 were men 😂. That’s a strawman. Our spirits came from God in terms of origin, and in that sense, yes — we can be called sons of God because we share that origination. But by nature, being physical and born of earthly fathers, we are not “sons of God” in essence, but rather sons by adoption — through faith! Do you understand? You keep tying yourself in knots here.
y/our opinion. The bible says all of us are His offspring. Do you know the meaning of offspring?

Whether it’s the Elders or the four living creatures, the point stands — these refer to angelic beings. Every theophany affirms angels surrounding the throne. The later visions simply revealed different classes within that angelic realm. That’s where your reasoning falls apart.
Now you are no longer sure if the verse referred to angels or the elders or some other. you have destroyed your entire doctrine, thanks

The Old Testament was written in Hebrew long before it was translated into Greek — and not by you, mind you — but by Jewish scholars who fully understood their own idioms and symbolism. You don’t. The term Elohim refers to godlike beings, which is why it’s used for God, gods, and angels. The heavenly host is denoted by malaikim — divine messengers who do God’s will. Ezekiel’s vision added the category of cherubim, a progressive revelation built on the already understood malaikim. Later, the concept of seraphim appears, and in John’s vision, Elders and four living creatures — still debated today whether they’re a form of cherubim or not. So yes, they’re in the Bible — which, by the way, is a compilation of the Jewish Torah and the New Testament.
Jesus Christ showed the Jews that they didn't understand the Old Testament. He reminded them that we are children of God. So seeking out the Jews to teach you the Old Testament is an error.
All the earliest Christians were Jews, so they already grasped these concepts. One of them even stated outright that angels delivered the Law to Moses — and he wrote a whole book emphasizing the Son’s supremacy over angels. And they had to give up falls understanding of the scripture. Jesus came to teach them the correct understanding.

And no, I don’t have to “prove” whether the Job passage is literal or figurative — the verse itself justifies the conclusion. The same way, I wouldn’t say Solomon was a son of God by nature when clearly he became one through obedience.
This means nothing, anyone can say the verse says he is right. It means nothing.

I’m not forcing Scripture here — you’re the one dodging it. Or are you seriously suggesting Jesus didn’t know about the Elders and the four living creatures, but chose to compare man to angels by accident? 😂 My brother, your “wisdom” is baffling. Jesus knew full well — but He used the general term “angels,” which His Jewish audience understood as heavenly beings. 🤷 What verse am I dodging. Please tell me and I will address it immediately

And as for “morning stars,” angels are called stars. Whether it’s morning or evening is irrelevant — it’s simply descriptive of their radiance. Every angelic encounter in Scripture involves dazzling brightness — even those in Revelation shone with a glory that dwarfed the sun. I don’t know what more evidence you’re fishing for on “morning stars,” but I suspect you’re just looking for the exact wording so you can nitpick 😂.

No angel is called the morning star. Show me a verse

Next time, copy me so I can respond sooner—I was busy attending to another thread. Now, let’s address your “concerns.”

You’re simply repeating yourself. The Word of God, as the biblical authors expressed it, makes the context clear: as a rule of thumb, those with a direct progeny from God are called sons of God. We, by contrast, are sons of Adam. Sonship can also be imputed through relational works—obedience and faith—as the Scriptures show. Therefore, Fatherhood has contexts that determine proper interpretation. I won’t keep repeating this; I’ve said it countless times, and you persist in turning a blind eye—despite knowing that part of Christian theology includes sonship by adoption. If you disagree, argue with your Bible, not me.
The bible never said those with a direct progeny from God are called sons of God. This is your opinion. Please educate us on angels direct progeny from God using the bible.

It’s you who hold the opinion that sonship is only by direct nature, and that’s totally wrong. I’ve given countless examples—even rhetorical ones—to show that if the Jews were truly comfortable with your version of sonship, Jesus would not have been crucified. You’ve conveniently avoided those analogies.
Its you who decides the literal and non-literal sons. You set the rules, not the scripture.

You’re also the one committing cheap fallacies 😂. You insist the word angel must appear before you believe it’s referring to an angel—that’s your conundrum, not mine. In numerous contexts, the sons of God and the host of heaven are clearly referred to as angels (malaikim). If you argue otherwise, you might as well tear those verses from your Bible and burn the Greek Septuagint that records them—and while you’re at it, erase the Jewish context altogether. That’s the cost of your dogmatism.
You insist that Morning Star = angel without proof. Is Christ also an angel?

The fact is, if man were already a morning star, Jesus wouldn’t need to give man the morning star.

The fact is, angels are not called morning stars nor are we told that they would become that.
As for “pilgrim,” your insistence that it must mean we were sojourners on earth is false in this context. Abraham’s sojourning can easily be called a pilgrimage, and even the present Israelites have yet to receive the full blessings of Abraham. Can you see my point? Your methodology is inconsistent and collapses under scrutiny.
So you have not read the bible. It clearly stated that we are strangers and pilgrims on the earth. Please understand the context earth is our pligrimage.

Genesis 1’s creation account makes it plain—man was created on the sixth day. I don’t need mental gymnastics to assert that man was the last-born of creation. The hosts of heaven existed earlier. Even in Genesis 2, man is formed later—plants had not yet grown—yet Job 38 describes beings rejoicing while God was forming the earth. And you claim these beings were men? 😂 That’s absurd.
Sir, which verse says man was created after the angels? I also asked where the elders were created before man or after man. Are they not part of the Host? Please be honest and provide the verse in Genesis 2 that says man came after the heavenly host. Who says angels were among those in Job 38? It could have been the elders

It’s not absurd because Jesus—who existed before the world began—affirmed such truths. What is absurd is that you, who supposedly had consciousness and “shouted for joy,” can’t seem to recall that glorious moment! That’s why I say your argument has been cheap from the very start.
I can't remember that I ate this day last month, is that absurd, or is your argument just weak?[/quote]

So all the Scriptures I’ve been quoting—nko?

They are irrelevant because none of them makes your argument. You may not accept my position, but all the verses support my arguments.
Is man a son of God? Yes
Did life begin before Earth's life? Yes, we are pilgrims here.
Are angels sons of God? Not found in the bible
How exactly did you infer that I claimed Revelation was false? 😂 And how did 5 suddenly become 6 before your very eyes? My goodness. From the beginning, every theophany ever recorded shows angels surrounding the throne. It’s only in John’s Revelation that we get additional details—such as the elders and the four living creatures.

Do you agree with the additional detail or not? If yes, the Sons of God in Job could be referring to the elders and not angels.
From ancient Jewish context and Scripture, the hosts of heaven—which, by your own logic, would include the elders and four creatures—were all called “angels.” Isaiah saw them as the host of heaven (malaikim), Ezekiel went further by clarifying that cherubim are a subset of malaikim (angels), and others followed the same understanding. John simply brought progressive revelation, identifying specific classes—four creatures and elders—and pointing out their unique roles and purposes.
Prov, prove prove, Prove that the host of heaven are angels from the bible, not the Jewish belief. There is a reason I don't practise Judaism.

Your logic fails because you can’t separate the literal from the metaphorical, which is why you end up forcing misplaced interpretations.
Prove one is literal and the other metaphorical; stop making up things. You agree that He is the literal father of our spirits, yet you claim He is not our literal Father.

And here’s the kicker—you are part of those being added to the assembly of angels 😂. That fact alone undercuts your entire sentiment. When Jesus said, “They shall be like angels,” He didn’t need to go into technical classifications—He was using the general term for heavenly beings. Simple. You’re the one denying the obvious.
He was describing only angels. Stop forcing scripture.

Man was never a morning star—if he were, he wouldn’t receive the morning star or be made into one at the end.
Mention one angel that was a morning star.

It seems you don’t actually read what I’ve written. Fatherhood has context—if you strip it of that context, you’re already in error. You cannot equate a context of origin with one of adoption—that’s wrong. This has been my point all along: Solomon was a son by adoption (obedience), but Adam was a son by direct origination from God.
Your opinion, not the word of God. God created our spirits. Explain why you think angels are His children and not man.



Angels, or angelic beings, are referred to as sons of God—they were the ones shouting for joy. Demanding the exact word “angel” in that verse is fallacious—the context already identifies them. Every theophany of God’s throne room in heaven includes angels surrounding and praising Him. These are the ones called “sons of God” in Jewish literature. No Jew would claim to be a “son of God” in the divine sense. At most, they’d accept the term metaphorically, as I’ve explained countless times—yet you conveniently overlook that.
This is gymnastics again. Angels are not mentioned in that verse. The context implies Sons of God, not angels. Man, the Elders, cherubim, and more. It could be any.

As for “pilgrim,” the context doesn’t support your reinterpretation. You’re introducing a new definition and committing intentional false equivocation to suit your position. The original Greek word and its context simply don’t support your claim.
The context and meaning do, unless you want to create your own words and meaning.

“Morning star” is a contextual title for divine beings. Ugaritic texts clearly state this, so it’s no surprise Jewish writers used the same expression. The term was also applied to “gods.” It does not mean “man” in that sense—if it did, Jesus wouldn’t promise in Revelation that the faithful would be given the morning star. Again, you’re ignoring context.
I dont get your point here. Explain better.

Genesis 1 states that the heavens and their hosts were formed before man. I don’t know what your Bible says, but your position implies men existed before angels—which is absurd.
You keep pointing to 2 or 3 chapters in Genesis. Please show the particular verse. Stop playing tricks. I can do the same and say Exodus 1 to 19 says man came before angels, but that becomes dishonest.

Finally, since you have no conscious recollection of shouting for joy at creation, it’s definitely not you being referred to. You’re imputing to yourself what doesn’t fit—a textbook categorical error.
This is not a very smart argument. I have no recollection of my second day at the university. Does that make my certificate irrelevant?

Well, that's your intrepretation. It seems you are the one deciding who exactly such a verse should represent 😂. You even added elders🤷 —beings exclusive only to revelations! Apart from this, there's no historical nor biblical reference to this "supposed elders".

Now you claim the book of Revelation is false and angels are not among the host of heaven.

You are the one interpreting all these verses through your own lense not mine. Angels are the host of heaven or rather the host of heaven are angelic beings; that's according to Jewish context!

According to you, not the word of God. In truth, the angels, like the elder,s are among the host.
Now, it seems you are the one also deciding whether Solomon was a literal son of God when evidence is contrary to you! It's obviously a metaphorical expression but you seem to hold onto it as some form of "Gold".

This is unfair you are the one who brought up who is and who is not literally a son of God with no backing.

Angels are also referred to as the host of heaven hence the reason why I told you to compare (cf. Nehemiah 9:6)—Nothing more, nothing less.
The Elders are the host of heaven. Angels are a part of the host according to the scriptures.
FYI: I don't copy, I type—It seems so to you, that's your opinion—it seems that everything is being decided by your opinion. I can't continue arguing with you, it has become redundant! Your argument falls within [b]the exact word fallacy along with lots of categorical errors. [/b]
I am quoting scripture, you are quoting opinion, and you accuse me?

One question: are the elders part of the host of heaven?
Note, even men are part of this heavenly host.
read
Hebrews 12:22-23:

Revelation 7:9-10

😂 Oh, this is rich. You keep insisting “angels did not” yet provide no verse to prove your alternative — you just negate what’s given. That’s not exegesis; that’s denial.
[/b]I have begged you to provide scripture, and you can't, so what do you want me to say? You provided Nehemiah 9:6
[b]Your argument already contradicts itself.
You admit men “become equal to angels” in immortality (Luke 20:36), but refuse to acknowledge that equality implies angels already possessed that state before man. If angels didn’t exist before man, how exactly could resurrected humans be compared to something that didn’t exist yet? That’s self-refuting.
Wrong, my younger brother got his driving licence before me, does that prove that he came before me? Make a real point and we will accept

Job 38:7 is not ‘logic gymnastics’ — it’s a timeline.
A timeline that has nothing to do with angels. You forced them into the equation.
It says “when the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy” at creation. [b]Humanity wasn’t formed yet (Genesis 1:26 comes later), so who were these “sons of God”? The text forces a pre-human category — and the Hebrew idiom in Job always denotes heavenly beings, not mortals.[/b]
the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God not the angels.

Psalm 148:2–5 destroys your chronology.
They are commanded to praise God for creation, not after humans appear. You can’t praise something that hasn’t yet happened unless you already exist. Denying this makes you twist the psalm into nonsense.
The verse says nothing about humans appearing, you infused that.

Nehemiah 9:6 explicitly says God “made the host of heaven” who worship Him.
The “host of heaven” is an umbrella that includes angelic beings (cf. 1 Kings 22:19, Luke 2:13). The Hebrew ṣĕbāʾ haššāmayim is consistently used for the heavenly army — angelic beings are a subset of that. [b]You can’t just declare “not angels” because it’s inconvenient.
Yes, the host of heaven worship him, and we also worship Him. Does it prove angels came before us or that they are his sons?

You cherry-pick “man as son of God” but ignore categories.
Yes, Adam is called “son of God” (Luke 3:38), but so are angelic beings (Job 1:6, 2:1, 38:7) — the term is applied to multiple classes depending on context. [b]Your refusal to accept parallel usage is dogmatic, not textual.[/b]
But you ignored Solomon, and others called the sons of God not just Adam. Adam is a man; he is definitely a son of God. My point exactly.

“Morning stars” in any idiom = divine beings.
Morning star is begining to mean many things to you. lol. The spirit of man is a divine being.


[b]Claiming ‘man and God had a relationship before the foundation of the world’ is irrelevant to chronology.
Yes, God foreknew the elect (Ephesians 1:4) — but that’s about divine foreknowledge, not human pre-existence. You’re conflating God’s eternal plan with man’s actual creation date.[/b]
It is not; it is clearly stated. Jeremiah was anointed a prophet before his mother's womb. He clearly existed. And we are pilgrims, we don't come from here

Bottom line: You’re reading with a preset “it must mean men” lens, so you reject anything that doesn’t fit — even if the timeline, language, and usage contradict you. That’s not letting Scripture interpret Scripture; that’s letting your conclusion dictate your reading.
You are reading with a false assumption that it has to be angels

I addressed all three and stuck to the Bible—unless, of course, these verses aren’t in your Bible? 🤷

Now you claim Satan was not an angel, yet he was counted among the host of heaven that fell! Let me give you a human example: you, tctrills, are Nigerian. Now imagine some scripture says, “tctrills and his humans fell” 🤨. Is tctrills—though Nigerian—not also human? 🤷 That’s exactly why cherubs are taken as a type under angels!

I’m sure Satan wasn’t the only cherub that fell. These are simple truths the Scriptures imply—it doesn’t always need to be spelled out word-for-word. If it did, then the Trinity, God’s omniscience, and the Godship of Jesus (as our cousins dispute) would all be “wrong” too.
Yes, you addressed them with verses that had zero to do with the topic. Nehemiah 9:6 is one of such.
Your example is really bad. Now imagine tctrills is a robot when you say tctrills and his humans fell, it doesn't make him human. You are imagining that Lucifer was an angel, but the scripture never said so. It only says he has angels

First, let’s clear the table: you keep asking me to “prove angels pre-date man’s creation” as if that’s somehow impossible. The proof is sitting right there in Job 38:4–7 — where God Himself says the sons of God shouted for joy when the foundations of the earth were laid. That is before Adam’s creation in Genesis 1–2. The earth’s foundations were laid on Day 1–3, while man didn’t show up until Day 6. Unless you’re suggesting Adam was present during his own construction, you’ve got your timeline backward.
Job 38:4–7 Too fake. This has nothing to do with angels. The verse can represent the elders, Man, cherubim, and any other creation.


This is a strawman. The question is not whether Satan held the title “angel” in a specific verse — it’s whether he was part of the heavenly host. Ezekiel 28:14 calls him the anointed cherub. Cherubim are heavenly beings, not human farmers from Eden. Revelation 12:9 also plainly connects “the devil and Satan” with “his angels.” So yes, he’s counted among the angelic host, fallen or not.[/i]
Heavenly hosts are not called angels. Many creatures make up the heavenly host, not angels.


Where exactly? Paul never contradicts Job 38. Hebrews 1:14 says angels are “ministering spirits sent forth to minister for those who will inherit salvation.” Spirits are not men. The “sons of God” in Job existed before man’s need for salvation. Your citation of Paul actually works against your case.
Yes, the verses do not contradict, showing that man came before the earth's foundation. We are only pilgrims on earth.

[i[b]]”Show me where you learnt that angels are pre-existent heavenly beings"[/i] From the Bible itself — Psalm 148:2–5 lists angels as part of the created order and commands them to praise because they already existed when “He established them forever and ever.” Nehemiah 9:6 says God made “the host of heaven” and they worship Him — no Adam in sight yet.[/b]
cheap lie Psalm 148:2–5 and Nehemiah 9:6 says nothing, they already existed, you made that up

“I am a Christian, not a Jew”
Irrelevant. The Old Testament is also Christian Scripture (2 Tim. 3:16). The Hebrew understanding of “sons of God” helps explain why Job uses it for heavenly beings — because linguistically (בְּנֵי הָאֱלֹהִים), it denotes direct creation by God rather than natural human procreation. Adam was called a son of God (Luke 3:38) because he was created directly, no human father — just like angels.
The Hebrew understanding of the Sons of God says you are children of the Most High. Old Testament.


Solomon had a human father yet was called the son of God”[/i] Yes — metaphorically, in the Davidic covenant (2 Sam. 7:14). That doesn’t erase the literal use in Job 38. Mixing metaphorical and literal senses doesn’t make your case, it just shows you’re conflating contexts.
Your opinion not the word of God. It was you who decided which is metaphorical and which is literal

Do you believe the Bible or your opinion?”[/i] I believe the Bible — which is why I’m not ignoring Job 38, Psalm 148, Nehemiah 9, Luke 3:38, and Hebrews 1 to prop up a man-only theory that the text itself contradicts.
But none of the verses above talk about angels being created before man. Are we now pointing to even unrelated verses to make our point.
Ok, let's read any of the verses together.
Nehemiah 9:6
You alone are the Lord. You made the heavens, even the highest heavens, and all their starry host, the earth and all that is on it, the seas and all that is in them. You give life to everything, and the multitudes of heaven worship you.

Did you even read before doing copy and paste? I wonder which verse told you that the angel came before man, definitely not this. Or you are reading from the Greek version?

Gabrielshow24:
😂 You just walked into your own trap here.

First, you’re asking for a “verse in Genesis 1 & 2” as if Genesis is the only historical record of creation in the Bible. That’s like saying, “If it’s not in Genesis 1 or 2, it didn’t happen,” which is already bad hermeneutics. Scripture interprets Scripture — and Job 38:4-7 is the specific verse showing heavenly beings existed when the earth’s foundations were laid. The morning stars sang and the sons of God shouted for joy. Newsflash: Adam wasn’t even formed yet. So yes, cherubim (Genesis 3:24) and other heavenly hosts were already in play before humanity.

Second, your question about cherubim “coming before man” answers itself — unless you want to claim God created a flaming sword-wielding cherub on the spot in Genesis 3:24 just because He was bored. No, they were part of the “host of heaven” already referenced elsewhere (Nehemiah 9:6). You don’t form an elite heavenly guard unit after the invasion — they were there before🤔.

Third, elders in Revelation are part of a heavenly vision given to John and are symbolic representatives — but whether literal or representative, they’re in heaven before the consummation of man’s redemption. That still places them outside your “man-first” timeline.

Finally, your problem is you’re trying to flatten all creation into Genesis 1 & 2 without considering parallel accounts like Psalm 148:2-5, which clearly says the angels were created before the world was established, and they’re commanded to praise because they already exist.

So yes — cherubim came before man. Elders? In symbolic vision, yes. And angels? The Bible already answered that in Job 38: before Adam’s dust was even gathered.

If you still want a verse that nails it — Job 38 is your verse. The only reason you’re skipping it is because it wrecks your entire premise.

Oga, we're talking about angels, not cherubs. Stop changing the subject. stick to the bible.

Brother, Job 38:4-7 doesn’t need to explicitly say “men did not exist” — the context makes it impossible for men to be there. God is asking Job where he was when the foundations of the earth were laid — the answer? He wasn’t. Humanity didn’t exist. Yet the “sons of God” shouted for joy at creation. Unless you think Adam was floating in eternity cheering before he was made from dust, you’ve just proven my point: these are pre-existing heavenly beings.

[b]"No verse places angels in existence before Adam… the first time angel is mentioned is Gen 16:7."
Job 38:4-7 says nothing about angels existing at the time you made it up

The word “angel” first appears in Gen 16, but that’s just English translation chronology — not existence. The Bible doesn’t need to first “name” something before it exists (e.g., Satan isn’t called “Satan” in Genesis 3, yet he’s clearly there). The “sons of God” in Job 38 existed before any human walked the earth — that’s pre-Adam.[/b]
The Sons of God existed not angels



Exactly — it’s men who become “equal to angels” in immortality, which means angels already possess that nature. Your argument backfires. If angels share the same undying, glorified state given to resurrected believers, that means they already are in that exalted “sons” category before mankind ever achieves it.
Possessing immortality is a different topic. Did they exist before man? That is the question here. Solomon did not resurrect before he became a son of God.



No. Hebrews 11:13 simply says the patriarchs were “strangers and pilgrims” — meaning their citizenship and promises were in heaven, not that they literally existed in some pre-earth life. Paul makes the same point in Philippians 3:20 — “our citizenship is in heaven” — yet no one thinks Paul physically lived in heaven before birth. This is metaphorical, covenantal language — not reincarnation theology.
Wrong, a pilgrim is one who originates from a different land, not. meaning their citizenship and promises were in heaven. Stop given new meanings to words



Except… Revelation 9:1 (angel called “a star fallen from heaven”) and Job 38:7 (“morning stars” sang together). In Hebrew poetic parallelism, “morning stars” and “sons of God” in that verse refer to the same beings — angelic hosts present at creation. So yes, angels were called “morning stars” long before your argument tried to erase them from the text.
“morning stars” and “sons of God” do not refer to angelic hosts, at least not in the bible.


📜 Job 38:7 — sons of God shouting at creation. Humans didn’t exist; angels did. Angels did not, at least not in the bible.
📜 Psalm 148:2-5 — angels commanded to praise God for creation; clearly they were already there. This logic gymnastics not scripture
📜 Nehemiah 9:6 — God made “the host of heaven” who worship Him — creation of angelic beings before man. You asked for one, I gave you three.
Long stretch, not angels. Many verses differentiate the host from angels. Again, this also proves that angels are not the only heavenly creatures.

[b]Your position requires (1) men existing before man was created, (2) ignoring Hebrew poetic parallelism, (3) pretending the absence of the word “angel” equals absence of the being, and (4) rejecting explicit texts that place heavenly beings at creation. Mine? It’s consistent with Scripture, Hebrew grammar, Jewish tradition, and early Christian understanding.

So no, you haven’t refuted the angelic reading of “sons of God” — you’ve just buried it under wishful thinking.
And the bible is clear, man and God had a relationship before the foundations of the world. Man is a pilgrim on earth.

Gabrielshow24:
Didn’t you see where I quoted Genesis 1 & 2, which clearly outlines the creation of the heavenly host before man? 🤨 This is becoming comedic! You can’t show it because it doesn’t exist. Scripture makes it clear—man was the last-born, the final work of God’s creation. If you want to change that, take it up with God 😂.

It’s obvious you’re the one stepping outside of Revelation to push an illogical conclusion. And I still wonder why you have no memory of shouting in the courts of heaven 😂—truly bizarre.

No verse in Genesis 1 & 2 talks about that. quote the specific verse. Now, if you claim Heavenly creatures came before man, then why did you earlier claim that all these came after man with the exception of angels?
Now did the cherubim come before man? Did the elders come before man? Please give your honest thoughts

What did I just read? Angels and God are both spirits — so your “man-and-dog” analogy collapses instantly. Cherubim, seraphim, archangels — all under the host of heaven — are still part of the heavenly family of God, not mere “decorations” in heaven. You keep dodging the central fact: the “sons of God” terminology in Job pre-dates man’s creation entirely (Job 38:4–7). That alone ends your argument — unless you want to claim mortal men were present at creation.
You say the sons of God terminology in Job pre-dates man’s creation entirely now, I have asked you to prove that angels pre-dates man’s creation

You accuse me of “making things up” while ignoring the overwhelming evidence — Biblical, historical, and linguistic — that supports angels as “sons of God.” This isn’t my private doctrine; this is the historic Jewish and early Church understanding for millennia, affirmed by respected scholars, the Septuagint translators, and the Dead Sea Scrolls community. You have word-of-mouth denial; I have explicit cross-references, ancient idioms, and contextual consistency.
Please prove the Biblical, historical, and linguistic. I am waiting

Your position falls apart because:

Job 1:6 & Job 2:1 — The “sons of God” present themselves before the LORD in heaven, and Satan is among them. These are not men on earth — unless you want to argue humans teleport into God’s throne room.
Satan was not called an angel

Job 38:7 — “Sons of God” shouted for joy when God laid the foundations of the earth. Man wasn’t even created yet. These are pre-existent heavenly beings — angels.
Paul disagrees, and I gave you scripture. Now show me where you learnt that angels are pre-existent heavenly beings

Jewish Context — In Second Temple Jewish literature (e.g., 1 Enoch), “sons of God” always refers to angels in these contexts. Your rejection isn’t “Bible truth” — it’s an ahistorical novelty.
I am a Christian, not a Jew. In the old and new Testaments, Man is the Son of God. I can't argue another man's religion.

Semantic Consistency — “Benê ha-’Elohim” in Hebrew literally means “sons of God” and is used in ancient Semitic culture for divine beings in God’s heavenly court. Men are metaphorical “sons” by adoption (John 1:12), but angels are literal sons by creation.
John 1.12 has nothing to do with angels

Luke 3:38 calls Adam “son of God” because he had no human father — the same logic applies to angels, who have no earthly progenitor. Logic of men. Solomon had a human father, yet he was also called the son of God.

Also, you’re mixing relational titles (sons by faith/adoption) with ontological categories (sons by direct creation). Peter’s “divine nature” passage speaks of believers receiving God’s moral likeness — not becoming pre-existent spirits like angels.

If you want to “use the Bible” to show that men are the “sons of God” in Job and Genesis 6, you can’t — without ignoring the plain reading, the historical background, and the consistent ancient interpretation. Every time you avoid Job 38:7, it’s obvious you’re sidestepping the fatal flaw in your stance.
I don't need a historical background, as you can read, the bible is clear that men are the sons of God.

You’ve had two days to “sell your doctrine” — and all you’ve produced is redefinitions, false analogies, and selective proof-texting. Meanwhile, the scriptures, the Hebrew, the ancient idioms, and history all stand against you.
I have done that already using the bible. the bible is the only thing you and I have in common. My question is, do you believe the bible or your own opinion?

classicben3:
Having the website first doesn't stop her from growing her page, you could pull traffic from the website to her social media pages same vice versa, I would suggest she does both together that's how it grows.

How does the website generate traffic?

How me where man was created before heavenly beings 😂. And please, apart from Revelation, give me verses that place the ‘elders’ before the creation of man—straight from Scripture! You can’t 😂. Even your inference falls flat. Let’s see whose opinion we’re really dealing with here 🤨
Very interesting, so you have no verse to show that angels came before man, but that has been the foundation of all your arguments. Now you ask for a second bible verse outside Revelation, do you not like the book of Revelation? You said angels came before man, I have asked you to prove it, but you can't, so where did you find this doctrine?

You can't even tell if angels came after men, yet you claim Job was referring to angels. Do you see what happens when you create your own doctrine instead of waiting on the Lord's revelations?

You claim, “Are you saying neither men nor elders nor other beings existed at the time Job was talking about?”
Yes — that’s exactly what Scripture teaches. Job 38:4–7 is explicitly set before the creation of the earth (“when I laid the foundations of the earth”). Genesis 1–2 gives the creation order: the heavens and their inhabitants existed before man. Nowhere in Genesis 1 is man placed before heavenly beings — quite the opposite.

You introduce “elders” and “other beings” without a single text placing them in existence before Adam. In Jewish thought, the “elders” in Revelation are a New Testament heavenly council image, not a pre-creation order. By assuming they existed before man, you’re importing a New Testament vision back into Job without warrant.
Your opinion not the word of God

Also, I failed to reply your dog analogy 😂. Your dog analogy fails because Scripture does not place men and dogs under one category, but it does place cherubim, seraphim, archangels, and other heavenly beings under the category of “the host of heaven” (Psalm 148:2, Nehemiah 9:6). This is the correct analogy category—not the one you made up.
Man and dog are both animals just as cherubim, seraphim, archangels, and other heavenly beings under the category of “the host of heaven

In short, your refusal to allow Job 38:7 to refer to angels is not driven by the text, but by your commitment to avoid the obvious reading. The context before humanity, the parallel passages, and the broader biblical use of “sons of God” all point one way—and it is not toward men or some undefined heavenly beings, but toward angels.

I did not refuse I have given you 2 days to sell your doctrine. Sons of God have never been used to represent an angel.
Peter also says believers will partake in the divine nature, but that is about moral likeness and immortality through Christ—not about becoming the [b]same class of being as God. Angels already share in aspects of God’s nature (immortality, spirit-form) but are still created beings (Hebrews 1:7, 1:14).[/b]
Peter tells you that you will receive the divine nature, but you make your claims. I believe Peter, not you. Let's read another verse.
Revelation 21:7-9 KJV - He that overcometh shall inherit all
So yes, we shall receive the nature of God
Ephesians 4:24: "and to put on the new self, created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness
2 Corinthians 3:18: And we all, who with unveiled faces contemplate the Lord’s glory, are being transformed into his image with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit.

Your reading of Job 38:7 strips the verse of historical and logical coherence. God is speaking to Job about events “when the foundations of the earth were laid.” [b]Humanity did not yet exist. The “sons of God” present at that scene cannot be humans; they must be pre-existing heavenly beings—angels—who witnessed creation (cf. Nehemiah 9:6, where the heavenly host worships God as Creator). Unless you are arguing for the pre-existence of human souls as conscious worshipers before creation—an idea Scripture does not support in the way you’re framing it—your position collapses under its own weight.[/b]
Please show that angels are preexisting beings, not man. Use the bible

Are you saying neither men nor elders nor other beings existed at the time Job was talking about?”
Yes — that’s exactly what Scripture teaches. Job 38:4–7 is explicitly set before the creation of the earth (“when I laid the foundations of the earth”). Genesis 1–2 gives the creation order: the heavens and their inhabitants existed before man. Nowhere in Genesis 1 is man placed before heavenly beings — quite the opposite.
Job 38:4–7 did not say that neither men nor elders nor other beings existed at the time Job was talking about. That verse is not in my bible.


You introduce “elders” and “other beings” without a single text placing them in existence before Adam. In Jewish thought, the “elders” in Revelation are a New Testament heavenly council image, not a pre-creation order. By assuming they existed before man, you’re importing a New Testament vision back into Job without warrant.
No verse places angels in existence before Adam. The first time angel is mentioned in the bible was in Genesis 16:7.

Luke 20:36 says the resurrected saints will be “like the angels” because they can no longer die. That’s a comparison, not an exclusion clause.
You argue: “It doesn’t make angels sons of God.”
But here’s the problem: Luke 20:36 does say they are “children of God, being children of the resurrection” and compares them to angels in status. In the Jewish Second Temple worldview, angels were considered “sons of God” (bene ha’elohim) — Luke’s statement makes sense precisely because the audience understood angels already bore that title in the heavenly realm.
No, Luke 20.36 does not call angels children of God. It says man is the Son of God. Please understand the grammar.
Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.
The children of God there refers to man, not angels

You dismiss the Septuagint (Greek OT) as “confusing yourself” because the Old Testament was written in Hebrew. This is historically inaccurate.

The Septuagint was the Bible for the early church and most Greek-speaking Jews in Jesus’ day.In Job 38:7, Job 1:6, and Job 2:1, the LXX explicitly renders “sons of God” as angeloi tou theou (“angels of God”). This was not a “translator’s mistake”; it reflected the standard Jewish interpretation of these passages for centuries before Christ.
By rejecting this, you’re not only contradicting the early church but also dismissing the interpretive tradition Jesus and the apostles themselves used.
Let's do some research.
The languages of the Old Testament are Hebrew and Aramaic. The majority of the text is in Hebrew, with Aramaic being restricted to several chapters in Daniel and Ezra, 1 a single verse in Jeremiah (10:11) and one phrase in Gen. 31:47. Hebrew was originally a language spoken by inhabitants of Canaan.

You claim these verses prove human spirits existed before creation.
This is a category error: Ephesians 1:4 speaks of God’s choice before creation, not our literal pre-existence. The Greek eklexato means “chose,” not “created beforehand.” This is about divine foreknowledge, not ontological existence.

Jeremiah 1:5 means God knew Jeremiah before birth — a statement of omniscience, not pre-incarnate human life in heaven. Jewish theology never taught pre-existent human souls in God’s court before creation — that idea comes from pagan philosophy (Plato’s anamnesis), not the Tanakh.
Oga, you can't know what doesn't exist. You only know people who exist. In fact, the book of Hebrew makes it very clear that our existence began before our earthly life.
Hebrews 11:13
These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.
Hope you know the meaning of a stranger and a pilgrim. I guess this completely answers your question. Now you know that man started somewhere before life on Earth. Hope no further questions here.


You keep saying, “Show me a verse where angels are called sons of God.” But:

Job 1:6, Job 2:1, and Job 38:7 do call the “sons of God” by that name, and the LXX, Targums, and later Jewish commentary identify them as angels.

[b]If you refuse this because the Hebrew doesn’t explicitly say “angels” — then by the same standard, you cannot affirm the Trinity, omniscience, or even the term “Bible,” because none of these appear in Scripture in exactly that form
This is a strange logic. Anyone can use this weak argument. One can say that this verse refers to anything and claim you are right because you cannot affirm the Trinity, omniscience. That is a cheap and meaningless argument.

You yourself use implicit category reasoning when you claim “God is the Father of our spirits” means our spirits existed pre-creation. That is not an explicit statement either — it’s an inference. You can’t allow inference for your position and forbid it for others
No, I did not. The Bible tells us of our precreation relationship with God, and I provided you the verses

In Hebrew poetry, “morning stars” and “sons of God” in Job 38:7 are parallelism — two phrases describing the same group. In the ancient Near Eastern context, “morning stars” was a stock phrase for divine beings/angels (cf. Isaiah 14:12). This is why Jewish interpreters across the centuries👀 have read this as angelic beings rejoicing at creation.

If you strip “sons of God” of this meaning, you must: Place human beings before the creation of the earth (contradicting Genesis 1–2), or
Invent unnamed “other beings” that Scripture never identifies — which is eisegesis, not exegesis.
You are correct about this, but our argument is about angels. No angel was called a morning star, or correct me if I am wrong.


Your position collapses because you cannot produce:
*A single pre-creation “man” in heaven

*A single “elder” in heaven before Adam

*A single verse where “sons of God” in Job’s context refers to humans

*A single Jewish interpretive tradition that matches your claim

Meanwhile, the consistent witness of Hebrew Scripture, the Greek OT, Jewish tradition, and the New Testament all point to this: In Job 38, the “sons of God” are angels — God’s heavenly host.

I showed you scripture already, now it's your turn, present a single pre-creation “angel” in heaven
A single verse where “sons of God” in Job’s context refers to angels

On your “cherubs are not angels” point — Ezekiel 28:14–16 makes Lucifer a cherub, yet Isaiah 14:12–14 calls him a “morning star” (Hebrew helel ben shachar), a heavenly being who fell. Revelation 12:7–9 tells us his rebellion involved “his angels.” This is not “wuruwuru logic”; it’s recognizing that “cherubim” are a class within the broader category of heavenly messengers/servants — what Scripture repeatedly calls mal’akim (angels). The Bible doesn’t need to say “cherubs are angels” in one sentence for the category connection to be valid; the cross-references establish it. By your standard, the Trinity could not exist because no single verse says “God is three persons in one essence,” yet we believe it because of cumulative textual evidence.
Let's use the scriptures, Lucifer is a morning star, a cherub, but it never said he was an angel. Yes, he had his own angels, but how does that make him an angel? If angels are cherubs, then the bible needs to say it, not you. Again, the bible did not define an angel. You are the one creating your definitions

As for Psalm 148:2, it does not “show the difference” between angels and hosts — it shows angels as part of the heavenly host. In Hebrew poetry, parallelism is common — two phrases reinforcing one idea. “Praise him, all his angels; praise him, all his heavenly hosts” is a poetic doubling, not a categorical separation. The same construct appears in Psalm 103:20–21, where “angels” and “hosts” are clearly overlapping. To read it as a hard distinction is to ignore the style of Hebrew poetry entirely.
Simple English shows that angels and the host represent 2 different things and not just a vain repetition of words

Your claim that “Jesus is the only begotten Son physically, not angels” misses the category difference. No one is saying angels are “physically born” of God — the term “sons of God” in the Old Testament is applied to beings who have their origin directly from God’s creative act, without human procreation. That is why Adam is called “son of God” in Luke 3:38 — he had no earthly father. That is why angels — created directly by God — fit the literal category, whereas believers become sons by adoption (John 1:12, Galatians 4:5).
You agree that angels are not physically born of God. Same with man, so why are you finding it hard to see that men are His children, but not the same for angels?

On Job 38:7 — you can dodge by saying “angels” isn’t written there, but the verse places the “sons of God” rejoicing before the foundations of the earth. No human existed then. No human spirit was walking around in heaven cheering at creation. Your use of Ephesians 1:4 is a category error — it speaks of God’s foreknowledge and election, not our pre-existence. Scripture does not teach the pagan doctrine of eternal human spirits cohabiting with God before creation.

Sir, but angel is not written or indicated; it is your addition, and you can't explain why. Ephesians 1:4 says God knew us before the earth was created. Paul is no pagan. I believe him, not you.

The “morning stars” in Job 38:7 are parallel to “sons of God” in Hebrew poetic form — a stylistic equivalence, not a separate group. Elsewhere in Scripture, stars are symbols for angels (Job 4:18, Revelation 1:20, Revelation 9:1). This makes perfect sense: angels existed before man, were present at creation, and are elsewhere called “sons of God” (Job 1:6, Job 2:1).
Which bible verse indicates morning stars, in Job 38:7, are parallel to “sons of God. Stop making things up. Stars symbolize more than 1 thing in the scriptures.
Revelation 22:16: Jesus himself says, "I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star.
Daniel 12:3: "Those who are wise will shine like the brightness of the heavens, and those who lead many to righteousness, like the stars for ever and ever.
Finally, if your standard is “show me where it says exactly X,” you will have to throw out large portions of Christian theology. The Bible never says, “God is omniscient” in those exact words, yet His all-knowing nature is undeniable from the texts. Likewise, the cumulative, consistent witness of Job 1:6, Job 2:1, Job 38:7, and Genesis 6:2–4 (taken with Luke 20:36, Psalm 103:20, Hebrews 1:7,14) affirms that “sons of God” in these contexts are heavenly beings — angels — not men.
Now you are being childish; omniscient means all-knowing. But you are yet to show that angels mean Son of God.

The real problem here is not that Scripture is unclear, but that you have locked yourself into an interpretation that forces you to redefine plain terms, ignore the Hebrew poetic structure, and invent a pre-creation human existence in the courts of heaven😂 that the Bible nowhere teaches.
The only problem here is that you depend on strange doctrines and not the scriptures.

You say you “never admitted such,” yet your earlier acknowledgement that “angels are not the only beings in heaven” already concedes that beings in heaven were present in Job’s scene. That’s exactly my point. Job 38:7 says, “the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy”—this is before man was created. You cannot insert “men” here without creating an anachronism. Men were not yet in existence, nor were “elders” or “other beings” mentioned in the Genesis account. The only beings Scripture shows present before man are angels (Job 1:6; 2:1).

If these “sons of God” were not angels, identify any other beings Scripture explicitly shows existing before Adam, capable of appearing before God in His heavenly court.
Let me understand your question. Are you saying that neither men nor elders, nor other beings, were in existence at the time Job was talking about? Oga, are you just making up things for God? Funny enough, man was even mentioned in the bible before angels, so where did you get your timeline to show that angels came before man, cherubim, Seraphim, the elders, and other heavenly creatures? Please explain your logic.

Your challenge ignores the reality of ancient Hebrew idiom. In the Old Testament, “sons of God” (bene ha’elohim) is a categorical term for heavenly beings in God’s service. This includes angels, as affirmed by the Septuagint (LXX), which translates it as angels of God in Job 1:6, Job 2:1, and Job 38:7. Jewish scholarship from the Second Temple period through the Targums also understood these as angels.

Even the New Testament echoes this: in Luke 20:36, Jesus says of the resurrected, “They can no longer die; for they are like the angels. They are God’s children, since they are children of the resurrection.” The “like the angels” here directly ties angelic beings to the sonship of God in the heavenly realm.
I have repeatedly provided scripture in the Old Testament to prove you are wrong.
Now to the words of Jesus in the book of Luke
Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.
Man is equal to the angels because he can die no more; it doesn't make angels Sons of God. Please read with understanding.
Why does the inspired Greek translation of the Old Testament (LXX) call these beings “angels of God” if they were not angels? Was every Jewish scribe and translator wrong for over 2,000 years, and only you right?
Which verse are you talking about? Remember, the internet can get us all translations, so be clear on the verse, and I will check the Greek translation. Again, the Old Testament was written in Hebrew, not Greek, so why confuse yourself? Find the Hebrew translation.

You’re conflating two distinct senses of sonship—ontological (nature) and relational (obedience). In the full ontological sense, only Christ shares the divine nature as the “only begotten Son.” Angels are sons by creation and role; men become sons by adoption through Christ (Galatians 4:4–7). This is why Paul makes a distinction between “children of God” and “children of wrath” (Ephesians 2:3). If all men were God’s sons “in every sense,” that distinction collapses, making Paul’s teaching meaningless.
Again, angels are not called sons of God, only man and Christ has that title in the scriptures

If all humans are sons of God “in every sense” without Christ, why does Scripture speak of adoption, new birth, and being “born of God”?

It means to be born of the spirit, to accept Him.

Yes—Hebrews 12:9 affirms He is the “Father of spirits.” But that title does not erase category differences. He is also “Lord of lords” without every ruler being equal in authority. Fatherhood in Scripture can describe origin, relationship, or nature—context determines which. Jesus’ sonship is unique, angels’ sonship is by creation, and believers’ sonship is by adoption and regeneration. Zechariah 12:1 only shows that the human spirit comes from God, not that man has always held the heavenly court rank of “sons of God” prior to redemption.
You agree He is the Father of our spirits, then I rest my case. Our spirits came much before our bodies. Tell me where it states that He is the Father of angels

Your speculation fails for one simple reason: Scripture never shows pre-incarnate man or “other beings” besides angels in the heavenly court before God. Every direct “divine council” scene in Scripture (Job 1–2, 1 Kings 22, Daniel 7) features angels. By introducing an undefined “other beings” category without Scriptural support, you are doing the very thing Matthew 15:9 warns against—teaching the commandments of men in place of God’s Word.
You mean Chirubims are recent inventions in heaven? Please quote and explain how Job 1–2, 1 Kings 22, and Daniel 7 relate to the discussion. I don't understand your point. Also, show me one thing I have said that is not 100% backed by scripture. I said man is the Son of God, is that not in your bible? You said angels are His children, and since yesterday, I have been begging you for a verse. Please point out where I have taught you the doctrines of man.

Where—chapter and verse—does Scripture describe these “other beings” in heaven before man’s creation, participating in God’s court? If you cannot produce such a text, your “revelation” is just speculation.
But this makes no sense. Where does Scripture describe angels in heaven before man’s creation? Again, you are depending on your human logic to decide for God that man was created before the other beings. Give me the timeline of creation according to you.

If Job’s “sons of God” are not angels, you must either:

I don't get. I am a son of God.
Place men in heaven before Adam existed (contradicting Genesis), or

Invent an undefined category of heavenly beings Scripture never names, describes, or shows in God’s court.
Let's see what your bible said about man's existence.
Ephesians 1:4-5
4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,

Jeremiah 1.5
Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations

[You’re still repeating yourself. Let’s use your own logic: given the absence of cherubim in certain throne room descriptions, does that mean there are no cherubs at all? Or is Satan the only cherub in existence? If you can answer that truthfully, you’ll see the flaw in your reasoning.
You are right, I am repeating myself because you are asking questions that I have answered, but I am not the one using logic here. I only depend on the revealed words, not logic. So the contention is not about Cherubs or how many there are. I only want you to show where it states that Cherubs are angels

The specific reason the “four living creatures” and the “elders” are emphasized is because of their work. There’s insufficient biblical data to suggest otherwise. When Scripture wants to highlight something, it does so with a purpose and in a consistent manner. Psalm 148:2 makes it clear—angels and hosts are used synonymously, for the angels are His heavenly hosts. Obviously, the four creatures and the elders are part of that host; it’s simply a categorical expression. There are other verses that support this, but this one alone is enough to illustrate the point.
Boss, we all went to school. That verse shows the difference. It is just like saying I had rice and jollof rice for breakfast. It makes no sense. Let's go back to the ABC of language.
Psalm 148:2 just proves my point. Thanks for the verse. It shows the difference between the angels and the hosts

Yes, God called them children because they were His—at least in spirit. From a physical standpoint, you are the offspring of your earthly father and bear his traits. That’s why, before Christ, it would have been inaccurate to call yourself a son of God in the full sense. But through faith in Christ and the spiritual knowledge of Him, we have become sons of God.
From a physical standpoint, Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of God. Not angels, not any other creature. God was not inaccurate to call Solomon His son. Or are you saying that angels like Christ are physically born of the Father? Or are they spirits just like the spirits of men?

Angels do not share God’s nature, but as spiritual beings, they share certain divine attributes. That’s exactly why I said, “in the sense of being spiritual beings.” You’re still circling the same point without advancing the argument.
the bible clearly says we shall inherit His nature. Do I believe you or the words of Peter?
2 Peter 1:4
Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature..

So let me ask you this:
If angels are not “sons of God,” why is Job 38:7 explicit in calling them such before man was even created?
I guess we are reading 2 different Bibles. In mine, Job 38:7 never mentions angels. Let me quote mine below, please quote yours.
When the morning stars sang together, And all the sons of God shouted for joy?
Please do your best to make this about angels.

If “sons of God” in Job were men, which men were standing before God before Adam existed?

Great question. Actually, yes. Our spirits existed with God even before the foundations of the earth.
Ephesians 1:4
4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
If the heavenly hosts include angels, elders, and creatures, why would you exclude them from the very title Scripture gives to the heavenly host?

And if Lucifer was both a cherub and had “his angels” with him, how do you avoid the conclusion that cherubim fall under the broader category of angels?
Now this is not making any sense, nah. Lucifer was a cherub, and he had his angel; hence, cherubim are angels.. What kind of wuruwuru logic is that?
It is just let asking, if you are a man and you have your dogs with you, how do you avoid the conclusion that men fall under the broader category of dogs.
Even to you, this can't make any sense.

Answer these without dismissing the text
I hope I have answered without dismissing any text, and my position is looking ever stronger.

Hi, I hope this is the right forum for this question.
A friend of mine sells fashion accessories and is thinking about creating a website with an online store. I think she should start by growing her audience on social media first.

How can she get people to visit her website? Is it too early to make a website since it can be expensive? What are the benefits of having a website now? Also, how does growing a business on a website compare to growing it on social media?

You’ve already admitted that the context in Job cannot apply to man—so why now demand an explicit, word-for-word declaration when the very context of those passages already points to angels?
No, I never admitted such. Again, the very context of those passages does not point to angels. We just learnt that angels are not the only beings in heaven.

It is not I who am ignoring Scripture; it is you who are turning away from what is written. The Jewish and scribal tradition is not silent here—they affirm exactly what you’re denying.
I just quoted from the Jewish scripture (the Old Testament) several times, and I have given you the opportunity to quote any verse that calls angels sons of God. And you can't.

Men are called “sons of God” only in a figurative sense; for angels, the term is applied literally. Genesis, as we have both acknowledged, is still open to debate—yet Job’s context is not.
Please just provide any verse where angels are called God's son, and stop beating around the bush. Again, we are not God's sons in a figurative sense. He is our heavenly Father in every sense

Jesus is rightly called the Son of God because He had no earthly father—His origin is directly from God. This same truth applies to spirits, but not to men. Men attain sonship only through faith and obedience. You have a point, God is the Father of all spirits, including the spirits of man. Our origin is directly from God.
Zechariah 12:1
The burden of the word of the LORD for Israel, saith the LORD, which stretcheth forth the heavens, and layeth the foundation of the earth, and formeth the spirit of man within him.

Like Jesus Christ, our spirits come from God. He is 100% our Father. Now Jesus Christ is the only begotten, not angels.

So tell me—if angels were not the sons of God in Job, then who were these heavenly beings standing before the Lord? Men? In heaven? Before the incarnation? Explain that.
Great question. We depend on revelation and not opinion. It could have been man or any of the other beings in heaven. We can speculate, but it is only right to wait on the Lord for revelation and not create our own religion.
Matthew 15:9

But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

You still haven’t grasped the full picture. Angels are celestial beings—originally, the term “angel” referred to heavenly or divine messengers who delivered the Lord’s words and carried out His will. Over time, the title was also applied to men, but only in the sense that they acted as messengers.
Yes, angels are celestial beings, but they are not the only beings in heaven. Again, here is the list below.
Angels
Cherubim
Seraphim
Living Creatures: Appearance: Four distinct forms — lion, ox, man, eagle — each with six wings and full of eyes (Revelation 4:6–cool.
The Twenty-Four Elders.
There could be others

It is therefore imperative to understand that every celestial being described in Scripture has a role. Take cherubim, for example: they guarded the Garden of Eden after man’s fall, the Lord is depicted as riding upon a cherub, and they are consistently seen in His immediate presence. Even Jesus, when speaking of the resurrection, said that men will be like the angels in heaven—a categorical statement encompassing cherubim, seraphim, and all other heavenly beings.
Jesus said man will be like angels, not like cherubim. His statement in no way encompasses cherubim, seraphim, and all other heavenly beings. It is clear enough that he only referred to Angels. No verse refers to cherubim as angels.

Revelation 5:11 proves that angels, living creatures, and the elders are completely different.
"Then I looked and heard the voice of many angels, numbering thousands upon thousands, and ten thousand times ten thousand. They encircled the throne and the living creatures and the elders.

As for the twenty-four elders and the four living creatures, Scripture does not provide sufficient clarity about their precise identities. What we do know is that there are celestial beings who dwell in heaven—the dwelling place of God—not in some alternate “heavens” as you are trying to imply. The available evidence strongly suggests that “angels” is a broad, generic term for all celestial beings in God’s dwelling, though they exist in different orders and categories.
Please provide any evidence that suggests that “angels” is a broad, generic term for all celestial beings in God’s dwelling, though they exist in different orders and categories. Revelation 5:11 says you are wrong.
Also read
Revelation 7:11 –
All the angels stood around the throne and the elders and the four living creatures, and they fell on their faces before the throne and worshiped God.


This is why your argument commits a categorical fallacy: Lucifer is repeatedly depicted with his angels, yet Scripture also tells us he is a cherub. The term “cherub” carries a distinct role and function in God’s work—thus, Satan is both an angel and one who performs the duties of a cherub.
Lucifer has his angels (messengers), but he was never called an angel of God. At least not in the bible. Again, where is it stated that cherubs are angels? Let's not make things up.

Now to your second point: God calls them His children because they do His will. Scripture makes this clear—all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. My nationality, whether Nigerian or otherwise, is irrelevant; what matters is obedience. Through obedience, I am a son, though not in the sense of sharing God’s divine essence. That privilege comes through Christ, who imputes His righteousness to me so that I might bear His nature.
God called them His children because they are His children, simple and short, and He did not call angels His children.
The words of Paul
Acts 17:28-29 (KJV), where Paul speaks to the Athenians:

"For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.
Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.

Offspring means children.


Yes, the Jews were called God’s children, but they did not share His nature. Only angels—or “gods” in the sense of being spiritual beings—possessed some form of divine nature, for they are spirits. The Jews understood this well, which is why obedience to God was paramount in the Torah—through obedience, one could attain sonship. Even now, I am a spirit living in flesh; though I have Christ, my earthly nature still awaits the promise that on the last day, I shall be like Him—sharing fully in His nature.
Is it written that angels share the nature of God, or did you make that up also? man, on the other hand, will inherit the nature of God. That is what children do: they inherit traits from their parents.
2 Peter 1:4
Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.

Gabrielshow24:
You are still conflating things, the prophets were delivering God's words. The audience and context of the prophets doesn't warrant such but they wrote such by inspiration of the spirit because of what God had in mind for us all. That's why they were messages and prophecies from God. The same messages also contain excerpts that doesn't fit man. The context sons of God(elohim) in the literal sense was used for gods or angels based on the context. The concept of sons of God as used for us is in the metaphorical sense through faith!

Don't get it wrong! There's the literal and there's the metaphorical. Jesus' words claimed the literal. Even the metaphorical was not greatly received as a form of divinity but rather as a connotation of obedience! Nothing more, nothing less.

You are missing the point. It's this simple. Did the bible clearly state that man is the Son of God? Yes, it did in both the Old and New Testaments.
Did the bible ever state or imply that angels are the sons of God? No. Not in the Old nor the New Testaments.
Final deduction: You made up the angels are sons of God theory or you are depending on other books, not the bible. In that case, you need to tell us the books you quote from. Simple.

Kingpele:
This war needs to stop ...yes people supported isreal to deal with that terrorist group call hamas but innocent children and women are killed on a daily basis....certainly this little ones are not hamas isreal promised to crush

You say you supported Israel in dealing with Hamas, but how did you expect them to do it without civilians dying? How is that even possible?

Gabrielshow24:
Nope, you just buttress my point more! God called them sons, the Jews didn't believe such. From the perspective of God they are his children but Jews do not use that language to address themselves, simple.

You are confusing everything. It is of little importance if the Jews believed or not. My question is, did the writers of the scriptures believe? If the prophets who wrote that man is a child of God believed, then you have no leg to stand on. We can then both understand that the writers of the Old Testament indicated that man is God's son, and neither the Old nor the New Testament talks about angels as God's son. So where did you get that idea? Definitely not from the word of God, or did you just make it up?

You are just appealing to exact word fallacy, cherubims are angels—They are heavenly beings in heaven that cover the Lord's throne, so no matter how you spin it, Satan was an Angel! A cherubim at that!
Boss let us depend on revelation and not your opinion. You are the one spinning things here while I depend 100% on the revealed word. I have given you enough opportunity to present a verse, just one verse where cherubim are called angels or where it was said that Satan was an angel and you failed. Please give me a scriptural reason to believe you and not just your made up opinion.
Here is a list of the different creatures found in heaven.
Angels
Cherubim
Seraphim
Living Creatures: Appearance: Four distinct forms — lion, ox, man, eagle — each with six wings and full of eyes (Revelation 4:6–.
The Twenty-Four Elders


God called them his sons, the same way he called the angels his sons in Job. God calls all his children, sons. The Jews didn't believe in such as I have expressly stated earlier. I didn't forget infact I pointed that out earlier when Jesus showed the absurdities in their thinking when he referred to himself as a Son—Something they were not comfortable with!
Again, you have had the opportunity to show me where God called any angel his son's and you failed. Or do you have a different bible from mine. Please if you have a different bible let me know.
I also showed you verses from the Jewish scripture where God called man his children so when you say that the Jews did not believe that they were the children of God, do we believe you or do we believe the bible? I choose the bible over you sir.

Only God referred to people as his sons in the old testament, mortal men, Jews, do not call themselves sons of God! Simple. No matter how you try this is the simple truth of scripture.
I am wondering the sense you are trying to pass here. Are you saying that God called the Jews his children in their scriptures yet they did not believe him. I don't understand this particular argument. Please throw more light.

I am asking from a Christian perspective. Before our birth and our lives as humans, did we preexist? What does the bible say about this?
Many religions believe that man is an ancient being that preexists earth life does Christianity agree?

RollinTNDA:
The best thing Chioma ever did was to ignore all the relationship advice to leave davido after his baby mamas came out.

Had it been Chioma listened to them and leave davido.
She will wake up the next morning and see davido on a date with that same girl that told her to leave him.

Only a 4 year old baby and a Simp listen to women advice.
I can never take a woman relationship advice serious. NEVER

This same woman advising chioma wants to be in chioma shoes so badly. Once u understand women it is very difficult to take them serious

So you stopped listening to your mom's advice when you became 5 years old. Strong man