THE ANGELS THAT SINNED

[EarlyActs]

If you have to go through such complications with your explanation above...forgetting about the birds that flew away...relying on speculation...then have at it.

Then again, if there once was a pre-Adamic world....then why Gen 1 the beginning? That would be like saying the fourth inning of a baseball game is the beginning....then again they may have soccer 4 runs in the fourth and that was the big inning.

2 Peter 3 has maybe answered the last. It says the universe was there long ago, while earth was formed (implying recently) in which ‘formed’ is a term from pottery. Out of water and through water. I heard astrogeologist Giem in a 2015 presentation on Plutos mountains, Saturns rings and our systems craters—except on Pluto—indicate that our system is recent.

Along with this Velikovsky predicted that Viking would get ‘hot’ readings from Jupiter. Meaning it was recent, and he was right. He had other reasons for thinking our system was recently formed as well. Oddly he did not accept the cataclysm but also believed earth was hit. And he believed the battle of Beth-Horon was a supernatural victory and sulphur came down.

 

[CrowCross]

2 Peter 3 has maybe answered the last. It says the universe was there long ago, while earth was formed (implying recently) in which ‘formed’ is a term from pottery. Out of water and through water. I heard astrogeologist Giem in a 2015 presentation on Plutos mountains, Saturns rings and our systems craters—except on Pluto—indicate that our system is recent.

Along with this Velikovsky predicted that Viking would get ‘hot’ readings from Jupiter. Meaning it was recent, and he was right. He had other reasons for thinking our system was recently formed as well. Oddly he did not accept the cataclysm but also believed earth was hit. And he believed the battle of Beth-Horon was a supernatural victory and sulphur came down.

I believe the bible explains the bible. The "long ago" world refers to the pre-flood world rather than a pre-Adamic world. .

2 Peter 2:5 if He did not spare the ancient world when He brought the flood on its ungodly people

2 Peter 3:5 But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens came into being and the earth was formed out of water and by water.

 

[EarlyActs]

I believe the bible explains the bible. The "long ago" world refers to the pre-flood world rather than a pre-Adamic world. .

2 Peter 2:5 if He did not spare the ancient world when He brought the flood on its ungodly people

2 Peter 3:5 But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens came into being and the earth was formed out of water and by water.

There is more is a disconnect between long ago and the verb formed. See what you find from Greek commentary and share it.

For one thing, 2 verbs are unnecessary for a double direct object.

2, they are very different verbs, stressing a contrast, not a similarity. ‘Ekpalai’ is simply to have existed a long time. ‘Sunestosa ’ is active forming by hand. Without a time handle attached, too.

3, many people scoff at our sun being recent Bc of what appears to be solid info about the distant universe. But this contrast would resolve that and validate a sun on the 3rd not 1st day.

4, one thing that can help here is to think of the dilemma of Ps 104., which is, why are creation and cataclysm so similar? He almost fails to distinguish. The point being: You would not use ‘ekpalai’ for such activity. ‘EkPalai’ is well settled, but creation and cataclysm are close in time and both have turbulence.

5, the blackest darkness was a prison for rebellious angels, in 2 P 2. Notice that earth is dark, black as things begin.

 

[Josheb]

First, I haven't offended you.

rotflmbo!

You were misquoted and you don't get to tell others when they are or are not offended. It is offensive to do so!

Second, I haven't asked forgiveness.
Third, if I did offend you obey the instruction in Matthew 18:15ff.
And fourth, I have a spine and very little offends me. Except those who say they are Christian and obey not the Lord as well as say wrong things about the One True God.
These are a contradiction to a persons profession to Christ.

According to who?

As I said, you have a really hard time staying on topic, keeping the posts about the posts, and answering valid and op-relevant questions when asked. You should work on that. Why? Because 1) I have asked a very valid an op-relevant question three times without an answer, 2) I've also asked for a return to the op-topic thrice, 3) I don't wholly disagree with the position stated in this op but that position warrants qualification because it is not wholly consistent with whole scripture, and 4) because Titus 3:9-11 has no become evident.

Titus 3:9-11
But avoid foolish controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels about the law, for they are unprofitable and worthless. As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him, knowing that such a person is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned.

I asked once. I asked twice. With kindness, patience, forbearance, sincere hope and respect I asked thrice. I did that with the one simple valid and op-relevant question and I did it with the repeated requests to keep the posts about the posts, not the posters. The response received was the stirring up of division existent in derisive personal attacks and abject refusal to discuss the op relevant to the question asked. According to scripture, that means you are warped, sinful, and self-condemned and I should have nothing further to do with you.



So that is what I am going to do. I am going to reply to this op and address its content as it deserves. I will affirm what the op has correct and I will refute what it has incorrect. I will do so with a plethora of scripture read exactly as written with little if any added interpretation. Any inferences I make will be explained with other plainly read as written scripture.

And I will ignore any protest on your part because you had plenty of opportunity to do this discussion correctly and refused to do so.

This is how it has been between us for a long time. It will persist this way until you learn how to keep the posts about the posts. I will continue asking questions, one at a time, in hopes of building consensus and when that proves untenable, I'll post a more scripturally-whole alternative and ignore you. I'll establish your pattern for all to see in hopes others begin to see what you're really all about (ie. dictating to others who they are and how they should think). I'll do this in hopes you will improve your participation in CCCF and perhaps one day you and I can have engaging discourse where you and I can collaboratively present,


a polite and respectful, resonable and rational, cogent and coherent, topical case of well-rendered scripture.


Is that the standard to which we should all aspire? One last chance. Answer the one single, simple, valid and op-relevant question asked and discuss this with me without you attacking me or I will continue without you.



Is the existence of the adversaries' influence on the world in Biblical times and today being denied?

If not, then please clarify because that is how this op reads.

.

 

[EarlyActs]

I believe the bible explains the bible. The "long ago" world refers to the pre-flood world rather than a pre-Adamic world. .

2 Peter 2:5 if He did not spare the ancient world when He brought the flood on its ungodly people

2 Peter 3:5 But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens came into being and the earth was formed out of water and by water.

Crow just to be clear:
I re-read and you are saying the heavens were made pre-flood, not pre-Adamic.

I have never heard that and see no support.

 

[jeremiah1five]

rotflmbo!

You were misquoted and you don't get to tell others when they are or are not offended. It is offensive to do so!

If you haven't told me you were offended then you were not offended.

As I said, you have a really hard time staying on topic, keeping the posts about the posts, and answering valid and op-relevant questions when asked. You should work on that. Why? Because 1) I have asked a very valid an op-relevant question three times without an answer, 2) I've also asked for a return to the op-topic thrice, 3) I don't wholly disagree with the position stated in this op but that position warrants qualification because it is not wholly consistent with whole scripture, and 4) because Titus 3:9-11 has no become evident.

Titus 3:9-11
But avoid foolish controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels about the law, for they are unprofitable and worthless. As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him, knowing that such a person is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned.

I asked once. I asked twice. With kindness, patience, forbearance, sincere hope and respect I asked thrice. I did that with the one simple valid and op-relevant question and I did it with the repeated requests to keep the posts about the posts, not the posters. The response received was the stirring up of division existent in derisive personal attacks and abject refusal to discuss the op relevant to the question asked. According to scripture, that means you are warped, sinful, and self-condemned and I should have nothing further to do with you.

That's what YOU think.

So that is what I am going to do. I am going to reply to this op and address its content as it deserves. I will affirm what the op has correct and I will refute what it has incorrect. I will do so with a plethora of scripture read exactly as written with little if any added interpretation. Any inferences I make will be explained with other plainly read as written scripture.

And I will ignore any protest on your part because you had plenty of opportunity to do this discussion correctly and refused to do so.

This is how it has been between us for a long time. It will persist this way until you learn how to keep the posts about the posts. I will continue asking questions, one at a time, in hopes of building consensus and when that proves untenable, I'll post a more scripturally-whole alternative and ignore you. I'll establish your pattern for all to see in hopes others begin to see what you're really all about (ie. dictating to others who they are and how they should think). I'll do this in hopes you will improve your participation in CCCF and perhaps one day you and I can have engaging discourse where you and I can collaboratively present,


a polite and respectful, resonable and rational, cogent and coherent, topical case of well-rendered scripture.


Is that the standard to which we should all aspire? One last chance. Answer the one single, simple, valid and op-relevant question asked and discuss this with me without you attacking me or I will continue without you.



Is the existence of the adversaries' influence on the world in Biblical times and today being denied?

If not, then please clarify because that is how this op reads.

According to WHO (for the second time.)

 

[jeremiah1five]

"4For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell".....is this the sin?

Gen 6: 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose.

Spirit beings do not bodies let alone penises. They cannot procreate at all. Their number is fixed: one-third. Not one-third and a half.
NO. This is not what led God to cast them in chains of darkness.
It happen between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2.
God destroyed the planet in fierce anger as a result of the angelic rebellion.
Then re-created the earth for His Plan of Man.
ALL the angels that sinned locked up before God created man.

 

[jeremiah1five]

If you have to go through such complications with your explanation above...forgetting about the birds that flew away...relying on speculation...then have at it.

Then again, if there once was a pre-Adamic world....then why Gen 1 the beginning? That would be like saying the fourth inning of a baseball game is the beginning....then again they may have soccer 4 runs in the fourth and that was the big inning.

Well, there was baseball in Genesis: In the Big inning...

Scripture says, "In the Beginning God created the heaven and the earth."
Fini. Completed. Done. Period.

Everything God creates has purpose. God already created evil and darkness when He created the heaven and the earth. But He doesn't create something void, and empty.
It became void and empty as a result of His fierce anger towards the angelic rebellion (which was a rebellion of the mind, not action.)
And the only time He could turn the earth upside down and make the fruitful place a wilderness and mountains tremble and hills move lightly is in the power of His might and before man.
The United States was originally at the southern hemisphere.

 

[Josheb]

I don't have a lot of time this morning so I will keep this brief and return later to address other problems in this op. The chief problem begins with the fact the op singles out two verses, removes them from their inherent context and makes broad over-generalized claims about these two poroof-texted verses that are selected in neglect of all else that scripture has to say on the matter.

4 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment. 2 Peter 2:4.

The number of angels that sinned are one-third.

They are ALL "cast to hell, and delivered in chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment."

ALL the angels that sinned.

This means that any and all evil in the world is the result of the sinful nature in mankind.
And it is all-encompassing:

5 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only.
Gen. 6:5.

This explains a great deal, such as the sons of God who married the daughters of men were human, those from the Covenant line of Seth and the ungodly line of men and women who disobeyed the LORD.

Jesus seeing Satan fall as lightning was at the time God cast them to hell reserved in chains of darkness awaiting the judgment.

There is no Satan except as the word is used: adjective and noun - "adversary."

Neither 2 Peter 2:4 nor Genesis 6:5 define all hamartiology.

It's just bad method. Slopy exegesis at best, willful eisegesis at worst, and given the now clearly-evident repeated refusal to address the question asked about the adversary's and his ilk's influences there's plenty of reason for concluding this op is willfully eisegetic.

Romans 5 tells us one man (Adam) is the cause of sin's entrance into the world, but the creation account of Genesis and that found episodically throughout the psalms and the prophets, along with the words of Jude inform us that a creature of God, the one who was subsequently called "satan" or "adversary" was the first in creation to sin, not Adam. Adam's disobedience brought sin into the world, but the sinful creature satan, in the form of the serpent, already existed in Eden prior to Adam acting in disobedience. So when jeremiah1five claims "There is no satan except as the word is used: adjective and noun - 'adversary''" that statement may be partly true in the singular examples of proof-texted verses but 1) the methodology is bad, and 2) it is not true of the larger condition of human existence.

One of my favorite books in the Bible is the book of James. I like it because James squarely lays the problem of sin in and on the human. Not once does he ever attribute sin to spiritual and demonic activity. In fact, he says the devil will flee if resisted! So my dissent is not wholly in disagreement of this op. We are culpable and we are our biggest problem. However, James was writing to the saved about the saved. James was not writing about the larger issues of hamartiology. Gnesis 6:5 did not occur in a post-Calvery, post-Pentecost world. Peter's epistle was but it does not say the bondage into which those angels was held prohibited them from influencing humans. The gospel is filled with examples in which they did.

So while the op hypocritically argues one thing I did not mention, the problem is the plethora of conditions not mentioned in this opening post. I'll cover more of it when I have time.

 

[Josheb]

One last chance. Answer the one single, simple, valid and op-relevant question asked and discuss this with me without you attacking me or I will continue without you.



Is the existence of the adversaries' influence on the world in Biblical times and today being denied?

If not, then please clarify because that is how this op reads.

.

If you haven't told me you were offended then you were not offended.

That's what YOU think.


According to WHO (for the second time.)

I meant what I said. There's not a single word answering the question asked. There's not one word there that's op-relevant. There' not one sentence there that isn't about a poster.


Titus 3:9-11

 

[CrowCross]

Crow just to be clear:
I re-read and you are saying the heavens were made pre-flood, not pre-Adamic.

I have never heard that and see no support.

The heavens were made prior to Noahs flood.

As for pre-Adamic I'm referring to a world that existed prior to Genesis.

 

[CrowCross]

Spirit beings do not bodies let alone penises. They cannot procreate at all. Their number is fixed: one-third. Not one-third and a half.
NO. This is not what led God to cast them in chains of darkness.
It happen between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2.
God destroyed the planet in fierce anger as a result of the angelic rebellion.
Then re-created the earth for His Plan of Man.
ALL the angels that sinned locked up before God created man.

Are you saying an angel can't take the form of "matter" and appear as a human?

 

[EarlyActs]

The heavens were made prior to Noahs flood.

As for pre-Adamic I'm referring to a world that existed prior to Genesis.

Ok the post in question left that open.

Have you gone through 2 Pet 3 with that in mind?

 

[jeremiah1five]

I don't have a lot of time this morning so I will keep this brief and return later to address other problems in this op. The chief problem begins with the fact the op singles out two verses, removes them from their inherent context and makes broad over-generalized claims about these two poroof-texted verses that are selected in neglect of all else that scripture has to say on the matter.

Neither 2 Peter 2:4 nor Genesis 6:5 define all hamartiology.

Why you looking for hamartiology?
God didn't offer salvation to the sinning angels.
Scripture says:

4 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment. 2 Pe 2:4.

"The angels that sinned" covers ALL the angels that sinned and this is one-third of the total created.
So, if ALL the angels that sinned were cast down to hell and delivered them into chains of darkness awaiting judgment then that means there are no angels that sinned that are loose upon creation.
Why are you having so much trouble with this truth?

It's just bad method. Slopy exegesis at best, willful eisegesis at worst, and given the now clearly-evident repeated refusal to address the question asked about the adversary's and his ilk's influences there's plenty of reason for concluding this op is willfully eisegetic.

The only adversary of God is on the planet, and they are human.
And this covers both saved people and non-saved people.

Romans 5 tells us one man (Adam) is the cause of sin's entrance into the world, but the creation account of Genesis and that found episodically throughout the psalms and the prophets, along with the words of Jude inform us that a creature of God, the one who was subsequently called "satan" or "adversary" was the first in creation to sin, not Adam. Adam's disobedience brought sin into the world, but the sinful creature satan, in the form of the serpent, already existed in Eden prior to Adam acting in disobedience. So when jeremiah1five claims "There is no satan except as the word is used: adjective and noun - 'adversary''" that statement may be partly true in the singular examples of proof-texted verses but 1) the methodology is bad, and 2) it is not true of the larger condition of human existence.

It doesn't say anything about the act of sin. Talk about eisegesis.

12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
God created man (Adam) sinful, fallen short of the glory of God. The word for sin is harmartia and it means "missing the mark."
What is the "mark?"
The glory of God.

13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
If there is a law against something Paul says we are guilty of it as sinners, even before we commit the act of that sin that God commands we do not commit.
Well guess what? The existence of the law shows us we are sinners.
"Thou shalt not [eat of it]" shows us Adam was a sinner BEFORE He sinned.
Sin does come from sinner, right?
Rom. 5:12–13.

Paul says:

7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet. Rom. 7:7.

Now let's apply it to Adam:
ADAM: "I had not known disobedience but by the law/command: for I had not known disobedience except the law/command said, thou shalt not [eat of it.]"

One of my favorite books in the Bible is the book of James. I like it because James squarely lays the problem of sin in and on the human. Not once does he ever attribute sin to spiritual and demonic activity. In fact, he says the devil will flee if resisted! So my dissent is not wholly in disagreement of this op. We are culpable and we are our biggest problem. However, James was writing to the saved about the saved. James was not writing about the larger issues of hamartiology. Gnesis 6:5 did not occur in a post-Calvery, post-Pentecost world. Peter's epistle was but it does not say the bondage into which those angels was held prohibited them from influencing humans. The gospel is filled with examples in which they did.
So while the op hypocritically argues one thing I did not mention, the problem is the plethora of conditions not mentioned in this opening post. I'll cover more of it when I have time.

Paul does not say anything about the act of sin only that the existence of the law/command showed him he was a sinner and we know - at least some of us do - that sin comes from sinner.
Adam was a sinner before he sinned.

8 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead. 9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died. 10 And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death. 11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me. 12 Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good. Rom. 7:8–12.

"Thou shalt not" in the Garden shows us Adam was a sinner BEFORE he sinned.

 

[jeremiah1five]

Are you saying an angel can't take the form of "matter" and appear as a human?

Angels do not have creative attributes of Deity/God.
If an angel of God appears in a body it is due to God, not the angel of God.
And all the angels that did sin are in chains. They are out of the way. Chained.
And let's also discern Christological manifestations.

 

[jeremiah1five]

I meant what I said. There's not a single word answering the question asked. There's not one word there that's op-relevant. There' not one sentence there that isn't about a poster.


Titus 3:9-11

I asked for clarification. Twice. Now a third time:
According to WHO?

 

[CrowCross]

Angels do not have creative attributes of Deity/God.
If an angel of God appears in a body it is due to God, not the angel of God.
And all the angels that did sin are in chains. They are out of the way. Chained.
And let's also discern Christological manifestations.

Tell that to Lot.

 

[jeremiah1five]

Tell that to Lot.

Actually, we learn from Lot.
Those weren't fallen angels that were sent to deliver him.
And as I said it was either a Christophany of the Godhead or God's angels of whom God gave them bodies.
The angels that sinned were cast down in chains of darkness awaiting judgment.
Locked up until judgment.

 

[CrowCross]

Actually, we learn from Lot.
Those weren't fallen angels that were sent to deliver him.
And as I said it was either a Christophany of the Godhead or God's angels of whom God gave them bodies.
The angels that sinned were cast down in chains of darkness awaiting judgment.
Locked up until judgment.

The verse is speaking of those that did the Gen 6 deed.

Yes we learn from a lot for Lot...angels can take human form.

 

[jeremiah1five]

The verse is speaking of those that did the Gen 6 deed.

Yes we learn from a lot for Lot...angels can take human form.

How can spirit beings locked in chains of darkness awaiting judgment get out of their prison to marry and have children with human women not having penises nor sperm?