Titans and their origin

[David M]

Hey there David,

You have given Augustine's explanation, which is perhaps the best explanation from the point of view that hopes to "rationalize" the Bible, but unfortunately, I do not believe the Bible is rational on this point. The reason is simple: From early times Jews interpreted Genesis 6 as fallen angels having sex and children with mortal women. Now this wouldn't matter so much if the same idea did not get confirmed in the NT book of Jude, which quoted the part of Enoch that talked about the fallen angels having sex with women!

So I see no way out of the obvious implications. The book of Jude explicitly and repeatedly quotes the book of Enoch which says that Genesis 6 was talking about fallen angels having sex and children with mortal woman, so this must be the meaning intended by Jude.

Richard

Hello Richard

You apply the same fautly reasoning to the Letter of Jude as you do in Genesis, so you argument is equally bad. Adding two negatives does not make positive, you still have negative. Your reasoning and conclusion are all negative.

Regards

David

[David M]

Hi David,

Just want to comment on one thing you said about people preferring to accept the word of man that the Bible is a myth. Well, isn't the opposite also true that those who believe the Bible, prefer to accept the word of man that the Bible is true? It goes both ways, so once again man is to blame

All the best,
Rose

Hello Rose

I am glad you got it at last; man is to blame.

The only comment I will add is that the true believer should not base their belief on the word of man that the Bible is true, but on the word of God itself. Otherwise. people who only take the word of man are being lazy and not are not giving proper diligence in ascertaining what the truth is.

Happy chatting.

David

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hello Richard

You apply the same fautly reasoning to the Letter of Jude as you do in Genesis, so you argument is equally bad. Adding two negatives does not make positive, you still have negative. Your reasoning and conclusion are all negative.

Regards

David

Good morning David,

I have no idea what you are talking about. You will need to identify the error in my "faulty reasoning." As it is, all you said is that I'm wrong, but you forgot to identify my error.

All the best,

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

You don't believe that science is the study of God's creation? Show me any aspects of science that is not related to creation as described in Genesis?..Astronomy, meteorology, geology, oceanography, ecology, zoology, chemistry, physics, biology etc. ....practically anything in science. Science is Creationology. Toss out your science books if you disagree with my definition!

What are you talking about? All the sciences you mention contradict the story of creation in Genesis. You comment makes no sense.

[CWH]

What are you talking about? All the sciences you mention contradict the story of creation in Genesis. You comment makes no sense.

What humans are studying inscience were what God have created. Therefore, science is creationology. Didn't God created the stars, moon, sun, planets i.e. Astronomy? Didn't God created the sky and clouds i.e. meteorology? Didn't God created the earth i.e geology? Didn't God created the animals i.e. zoology? Didn't God created the sea, the fishes and the marine animals. i.e. Oceanology? Didn't God created the trees and plants i.e. Botany? Didn't God created bacteria i.e. Microbiology. The list can go on and on. Solomon said, "there is nothing new under the sun" meaning what we humans have learned, knew or created were nothing new which were already achieved by God. All is vanity.

If you can't see creationology in science, then science have blinded your eyes. Even Einstein and Darwin said that there is a God of creation or some supreme powers in their later years.

God creation is amazing!

[gilgal]

Ok so we went over Uranus and Gaia and their parallel interpretation from the bible. What about the meaning of the rest like Zeus and Hades...

[David M]

Good morning David,

I have no idea what you are talking about. You will need to identify the error in my "faulty reasoning." As it is, all you said is that I'm wrong, but you forgot to identify my error.

All the best,

Richard

Sometimes Richard I think you are being deliberatively obstructive despite the obvious. I thought that what you said in the following was obviously in error.

So I see no way out of the obvious implications. The book of Jude explicitly and repeatedly quotes the book of Enoch which says that Genesis 6 was talking about fallen angels having sex and children with mortal woman, so this must be the meaning intended by Jude.

This is just a totally bad conclusion. I thought you were much better at analysis than I am giving you credit for. When it comes to proper analysis of the Bible, you are lacking at the moment. I am not saying I am better at analysis, but I do not make such blatantly false conclusions as you are making here. I am open to other opinions as to who are the angels referred to and I go with other opinions which I can understand and reason. I fail to understand your reasoning, which might not be your own. You said I gave "Augustine's explanation", of whom I know nothing about; this shows you are well read in lots of other writings. I gave the same reasoning as given by other free-thinkers, who are not locked into anyone else's thinking, but have reached the same conclusions as others. All our thinking can be influenced or not influenced by what we read or hear other people speak. I am not attaching labels to myself. Are you a free-thinker on this subject or have you locked on to someone else's teaching. What is your reason for choosing what you have and ruling out what others have said on this matter of so-called "fallen angels"?

In my opinion what you say and conclude is in error. You are in error of associating the angels mentioned in Jude with the angels mentioned in Genesis which were both not the Holy Angels of God who do His will. Another reason has to be found for who is being referred to as the angels.


David

[gilgal]

Jude 1:6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.

What do you think of this passage concerning estate?

[Beck]

Jude 1:6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.

What do you think of this passage concerning estate?

"those who did not keep their own principality" YLT

[gilgal]

"those who did not keep their own principality" YLT

Could it be that they went through a biological change to be able to mate, thus falling from their holy state?