Jump to content
Kingdom of Adventistan
JoeMo

Two Second Comings?

Recommended Posts

stinsonmarri
On 12/5/2019 at 12:35 PM, JoeMo said:

You are free to believe whatever you want.  In the OT, those described as sons of God are indeed (IMHO) angels.  They are called sons of God because they are direct creations of God.  It wasn't until the NT that humans were called sons of God; and that is simply because we were adopted as sons. The only humans who were called sons (direct creations) of God are Adam and Jesus.

"For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father." (Romans 8:15)

"And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body. "Romans 8(:23)

"Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;" (Romans 9:4)

"To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons." (Gal. 4:5)

"Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will," (Eph 1:5)

Show me some OT scriptures where beings other than angels or Christ are called "sons of God". I haven't found any.

We all are free to believe what we want Joe. However, is it in the Bible that does not lie? So let look at what you are providing shall we?  Even though it is your humble opinion does it matches the Bible?

The Scriptures Romans 8:15, 23; 9:4; Gal. 4:5; you gave is about being in bondage under sin and by YAHSHUA'S death we are now adopted. What does that mean?

Adoption (uihothesia)From a presumed compound of G5207 and a derivative of G5087; the placing as a son. . . Strong Greek Dictionary

Here is the problem if you check out the concept it is the Greek and Latin thought of adoption and again not YAHWEH'S I can prove it with the word predestinat and reconcile   :

Predestinate: Something that's predestinate has been planned or arranged already — there's no way to change its outcome. (this part is false and flesh beings concept)  Vocabulary.com 

Reconcile (apokatallassō): Directly from Latin reconcilare "to bring together again; regain; win over again. Strong Greek Dictionary

And, having made peace through THE BLOOD of HIS stake, by HIM to reconcile all things unto HIMSELF; by HIM, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in Heaven. Col 1:20 

 We just don't see that we try to bring YAHSHUA, THE FATHER, THE HOLY SPIRIT and the Holy angels to our level of thinking. We are all different subcultures of people and say and use words that suits us but are not of THE MOST HIGH! Languages and culture changes because many have change their faith and belief in THE MOST HIGH! We all tried to rationalize the Bible in our own language and culture and loses the concept that was originally giving to us. I stated very clearly; "Because we were sons and daughters of YAHWEH before we sin and after." So we take a word like predestination that the KJV used  that Strongs Greek defines it to mean limit in advance, that is, (figuratively) predetermine: - determine before, ordain. Were we not predetermined to be created in THEIR IMAGE and to be THEIR sons and daughter or not? The Bible said yes! Because we were planned! THEY knows the beginning and the ending, so they knew before creating us; the Adams would sin! Yet, THEY planned  and Created us anyway! Because we must be created to have free will! THEY Created free will beings to love them on their own and not by force. They also had a planned a redemption plan. The Adams fell but could be reconciled by only ONE of THE ALMIGHTIES in order to return being a part of the family again. The adoption was not like the Greek or the Latin that we accept today. The adoption according to the Bible is to win over or to bring them back. The only way was for THE SON to die to return flesh beings from a 6 back to a 7, being perfect and now returning to be part of the families of unfallen worlds. Be again sons and daughters before they fail. The incredible sadness of this story, many chose to lose their souls regardless!

That did not stop THE FATHER because many will choose to be save, out of love and pure faith. It is not about our opinions; it is about the Bible. We can allow ourselves to be caught up into flesh being's theology  which is confusing and diverse. YAHWEH IS THE SAME Today, Yesterday and Tomorrow. HE DOES NOT CHANGE!  We have and believe the culture of the ancient past that we still accept today. I do not have an opinion; I have the Bible and it shows clearly the straight and narrow path we must take to make it in. We do not create but yet we think we know but don't. The Bible points very clear how angels are spirit beings and we are flesh beings. It shows all through the Scriptures and in the name of Lucifer himself that he was the morning star. YAHSHUA is THE BRIGHT AND MORNING STAR! I cannot make anyone believe the truth, only that person willingness to be humble and allow THE HOLY SPIRIT  to lead them. Never THE FATHER SAID have HE ever call angel a son, but have with created beings from all fallen worlds and us! THE FATHER SAID angels are ministering spirits. I believe it and if you don't that is not opinion that is a choice! We choose to obey and to understand the Word or we don't. The outcome of our soul is on each individual and that is all that needs to be said!

Blessings and Happy Sabbath!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you find some value to this community, please help out with a few dollars per month.

BlessedMan
40 minutes ago, stinsonmarri said:

We all are free to believe what we want Joe. However, is it in the Bible that does not lie? So let look at what you are providing shall we?  Even though it is your humble opinion does it matches the Bible?

The Scriptures Romans 8:15, 23; 9:4; Gal. 4:5; you gave is about being in bondage under sin and by YAHSHUA'S death we are now adopted. What does that mean?

Job 1:6  Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.
Job 2:1  Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD.

Despite triumphant challenges to "show me one text that says beings other than the angels or Christ are called the sons of God" there are Biblical viewpoints which would certainly challenge this idea.

One, initial suggestion here would simply be a question: "why would it be so important to "prove" as fact that "sons of God" MUST mean either "angels or Christ?"  Would that be because of a Biblical statement that actually says that, or would it be better to relate it to just the context of the passage in the book of Job where it talks about "the sons of God?"  Our answer to this could make quite a difference.

For this post, let us simply consider a brief survey on all of the verses that mention "sons of God..."

Quote

 

1/ Gen 6:2  That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

2/ Gen 6:4  There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

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

4/ Job 2:1  Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD.

5/ Job 38:7  When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

6/ John 1:12  But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

7/ Rom 8:14  For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.

8/ Rom 8:19  For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.

9/ Phil 2:15  That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world;

10/ 1 John 3:1  Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.

11/ 1 John 3:2  Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.

 

Sons of God. The LXX translates the phrase, (from Job 1:6) as “angels of God;” BUT is that actually a 100% beyond any doubt FACT; if we just consider Job 1:6 apart from the intended context?

Looking at Job 1:6 however, we can likely safely conclude that the phrase "before The Lord" does not indicate to us exactly where this might have been, so there is no easy way to decide where this took place. Some say "it had to be in heaven," but there are other possibilities. I personally don't see why it would be super-important to decide that said "sons of God" were angels, or humans. The texts above, 6-11 seem to open up other considerations. "NOW are we the sons of God," from 1 John 3:2 certainly tells a different story. WE are NOW sons [and daughters] of God.

I disagree with the SDABC note on this which insists that Job 1:6 and similar texts are ONLY talking about angels. It suggests, on the basis of Col 1:15 that Angels, like humans, are created; and that is true. No argument there. So now we arrive at my question from above: "why do we need to prove that its only talking about "angels" and Satan? What Biblical doctrine, or truth, do we need to see it that way for? What difference would it make if I tried to say that  "sons [and daughters] of God"  means human beings? Would THAT opinion take away from any Biblical truths?

If we look at Strong's #H1121, which is whats used in Job 1:6 or Job 2:1, we see that that word is more used in the various contexts describing human beings. It could mean "son," or "daughter," or even in the figural sense such as "nation." The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew Definitions makes this very interesting:

BDB Definition:

1) son, grandson, child, member of a group
1a) son, male child
1b) grandson
1c) children (plural - male and female)
1d) youth, young men (plural)
1e) young (of animals)
1f) sons (as characterisation, i.e. sons of injustice [for unrighteous men] or sons of God [for angels])
1g) people (of a nation) (plural)
1h) of lifeless things, i.e. sparks, stars, arrows (figuratively)
1i) a member of a guild, order, class

Aside from a relatively unsupported interpretation in the LXX defining the word "sons" as "angel," I don't see a lot of support contextually, or textually for insisting it must mean ONLY angels and Satan. If we look at the first 5 verses of Job, chapter one, it is talking about Jobs 7 sons and three daughters, so why on earth would it suddenly for verse 6 switch context over to "angels" like that? It would certainly fit if we called Job's sons and daughters "children" [sons & daughters] of God, and that when they presented to God, the devil was right there trying to usurp. It really doesn't make sense to me to insist that it suddenly switched over to "angels" with Satan alongside them; for when he does his work as "accuser of the brethren" there can be no doubt that this commonly happens to us, in addition to, or besides, with angels.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JoeMo
14 hours ago, BlessedMan said:

1/ Gen 6:2  That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

2/ Gen 6:4  There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

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

4/ Job 2:1  Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD.

5/ Job 38:7  When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

6/ John 1:12  But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

7/ Rom 8:14  For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.

8/ Rom 8:19  For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.

9/ Phil 2:15  That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world;

10/ 1 John 3:1  Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.

11/ 1 John 3:2  Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.

You left a verse out:

"Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan, Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God." (Luke 3:37-38)

Adam was the only one in the list who was declared to be a son of God. Why Adam and none of the others? Because Adam was a direct creation of God.

In a sense, NT believers can legitimately be called "sons of God" because they are a "new creation":

"Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new." (2 Cor. 5:17)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8thdaypriest
4 hours ago, JoeMo said:

In a sense, NT believers can legitimately be called "sons of God" because they are a "new creation":

"Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new." (2 Cor. 5:17)

I like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stinsonmarri
20 hours ago, BlessedMan said:

Despite triumphant challenges to "show me one text that says beings other than the angels or Christ are called the sons of God" there are Biblical viewpoints which would certainly challenge this idea.

You prove that yourself, that's what make this statement unbelievable, so I thank you!

6 hours ago, JoeMo said:

There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that

 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, Gen 6:1

Now the verse plainly begins with the multiplication of daughters were born by them. Then Bible said very clearly;

And YAHWEH said, MY SPIRIT shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. Gen 6:3  

Are we not all of us rational and intelligent individuals? Now, why would HE not say strive with the angels and man? If these were angels YAHWEH would permit such an unaccountable thing and not explicitly only charge the flesh beings in the act without charging the angels? The same angels mind you that had war in Heaven and lost. THE CREATORS would just let this most unusual incident just go and a flood could destroy the superhumans? Now, this reminds me of the Greek god Zeus who was having sex with earthly women and oh yeah produce Apollo, Hercules and other superhumans. Seem like these superbeings are hanging around now right? If water can killed thes whatever mix with angels, why not do the same thing instead of fire? So, this one Text states these were angels can you show me where? YAHWEH just let this incident goes and YAHSHUA says were are going act like the day of Noah, how is that if they are mix with angels? We must going to have angels doing again today right?

Let's take a look at the word giants in Gen 6: The Hebrew word is "nephı̂yl nephil," so this mean enormously tall beings, let say like the Greek version of giants? Strange that is not what Strong Hebrew Dictionary states at all! He states that this word means: properly, a feller, that is, a bully or tyrant. Now why would the KJV scholar use the English word giant is clear how they thought and believed:

1300, "fabulous man-like creature of enormous size," from Old French geant, earlier jaiant "giant, ogre" (12c.), from Vulgar Latin *gagantem (nominative gagas), from Latin gigas "a giant," from Greek Gigas (usually in plural, Gigantes), one of a race of divine but savage and monstrous beings (personifying destructive natural forces), sons of Gaia and Uranus, eventually destroyed by the gods. The word is of unknown origin, probably from a pre-Greek language. Derivation from gegenes "earth-born" is considered untenable.

It replaced Old English ent, eoten, also gigant (from Latin). The Greek word was used in Septuagint to refer to men of great size and strength, hence the expanded use in modern languages. . . Etymology Dictionary

No reference at all from the Bible and I also check with biblehub.com and strangely the NAS Exhaustive Concordance states:

From naphal -Definition: "giants," name of two peoples, one before the flood and one after the flood.

So, the word giants are name of two peoples before and after the flood, really! That's a definition?? Well the actual Hebrew word; "râphâ'  râphâh," that is use for giant/giants, and means person of height were many tribes of the Canaanites. Some of the Canaanite were bullies or tyrants. And the Hebrew word "nephil," is use about these tall people. The verse Num 13:32 clearly states they were people of great size. Now, these were the other eight spies claiming that Israel to them were like locust, the actual word that should have been used. Meaning because of their height "râphâ' and their mind set, "nephil," they were highly conceited people. Caleb and Joshua felt they could take these high mind sons of Anak. The word "nephil," is only mention here and in Gen 6:4. The Bible even mentions the length and size of the bed of the tall Canaanites using the correct Hebrew word "râphâ.'  Keep in mind that Goliath was a "râphâ', also but the Philistines came from Mizraim, Canaan's second older brother! Gen 10:13,14

6 hours ago, JoeMo said:

But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God

That is so true because Adam was created from the beginning as the son of ELOHIYM! We certainly agree! And that was predestined from the very beginning and through reconciliation by YAHSHUA, we are brought back into the family of beings created as again as sons and daughters of THE MOST HIGH.

6 hours ago, JoeMo said:

"Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan, Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God." (Luke 3:37-38)

So, Adam was a son meant Seth was a son, mean Enos was a son, which meant Cainan was a son, which Maleleel was a son, Jared was a son, which Enoch was a son and Methuselah was a son, Lamech was a son,  Noah was a son and Shem, Ham, and Japheth were sons  of THE MOST HIGH!  If you notice the Scriptures in Genesis states this:

This is the book of the genealogy of Aḏam.  In the day that ELOHIYM created the Adams, made in the likeness of ELOHIYM;  Male and female HE created them, and HE Blessed them, and called their name ‘Aḏam’ in the day they were created. And Aḏam lived one hundred and thirty years, and brought forth a son in his own likeness, after his image, and called his name Shĕth. Gen 5:1-3 Scriptures 98+

Cain, nor his descendants were mention in the generations of righteous Adam. Here is the true reason why:

 And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon THE NAME of YAHWEH. Gen 4:26

These sons of Adam who were sons of YAHWEH begin to call on THE MOST HIGH. Where Cain's descendants were not sons of YAHWEH,  nor the did they have true RESEMBLANCE or LIKENESS  of YAHWEH like Seth did. So, I thankful for Luke that I forgot, which shows that THE HOLY SPIRIT used Blessed Man to bring out the Scripture of truth more clearly! That is how HE works. Truth will not come back void!

6 hours ago, JoeMo said:

Adam was the only one in the list who was declared to be a son of God. Why Adam and none of the others? Because Adam was a direct creation of God.

In a sense, NT believers can legitimately be called "sons of God" because they are a "new creation":

"Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new." (2 Cor. 5:17)

I am sorry Joe that is not how the Hebrew Text and grammar provides it at all. You are right we can again on what I stated earlier. Matter of fact you brought it out so well with predestination, reconcile, and adoption! Again it is THE HOLY SPIRIT that will bring out the truth using HIS own instruments. Showing that YAHWEH'S WORDS WILL NOT COME BACK VOID!

You know, I notice that you all become so hostile when stating your point, why? Truth is a humbling matter not an angry and becoming all upset. I also told you all that YAHWEH made it very clear;

For unto which of the angels said HE  at any time, Thou art MY SON, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him A FATHER, and he shall be to ME a son? Heb 1:5

Well, those are the words that straight from the Bible. It is sad, when the Bible states clearly, not to add or subtract from the Bible. There are no Greek and Europeans mythology in the Bible and it is on record where all this comes from. You cannot mix fairy tales with the Bible, they do not mix. Can I personally make any of you believe the above facts? No, I can't, but I will stand on the Word of THE MOST HIGH! I can present it and you all aided me yourselves. It is up to you to either believe the true Hebrews words and their meanings, or take the KJV translators of the Middle Ages. That's your choice and again, I have made mine. I am not here to win a prize or a debate, I am here to present the truth according to the actual Hebrew and Greek words and meanings of the Bible. I can only ask one thing all of all sincere people, who like me want to be saved. Pray and allow THE HOLY SPIRIT to lead you! I have nothing to gain but only my soul and that my friends is my only concern and nothing else! Pray for me as I pray for you as well!

May YAHWEH bless you, may HE shine HIS FACE upon you and give you peace! Happy Sabbath

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JoeMo

I am painfully aware of how unpopular my POV on the sons of God and Nephillim are on this forum.  There are other more non denominational and open minded Christian forum where what I propose is the accepted norm.  At my own little SDA Church most people accept the view I have proposed as fact.  It's not even a point of contention; it's just accepted like the creation story. I probably won't be discussing that issue too much here unless challenged sufficiently.  I will nonetheless continue to believe as I do.

:backtopic: - which is the idea of two second comings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rudywoofs (Pam)
27 minutes ago, JoeMo said:

I am painfully aware of how unpopular my POV on the sons of God and Nephillim are on this forum. 

:)  not by all — and I think some of us have a bit more insight than supposed "experts" on linguistics and semantics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BlessedMan
14 hours ago, JoeMo said:

You left a verse out:

"Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan, Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God." (Luke 3:37-38)

No, my friend, I did not leave out a verse. The search query I entered was "sons of God,"  a little more specific to the item of discussion. IOW, I think that "son of God" in the verse you cited, is different than "sons of God" which we were discussing re the book of Job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stinsonmarri
5 hours ago, JoeMo said:

I am painfully aware of how unpopular my POV on the sons of God and Nephillim are on this forum.  There are other more non denominational and open minded Christian forum where what I propose is the accepted norm.  At my own little SDA Church most people accept the view I have proposed as fact.  It's not even a point of contention; it's just accepted like the creation story. I probably won't be discussing that issue too much here unless challenged sufficiently.  I will nonetheless continue to believe as I do.

:backtopic: - which is the idea of two second comings.

Joe, I hurt when you think it is about a point of view. It is about what something actually means in the Bible. You nor I can change that! Remember we are to believe the truth. Many want to keep Sunday because their ancestors did. Their ancestor probably didn't know the truth and lived up to all they knew. So that person cannot blame their salvation on their ancestors. 

What truly makes me frustrated is the translation which cause so much confusion. Trying to understand the diversity of modern cultures is difficult enough. Hebrew is an African language and it must be understood in that language, grammer, syntax, meaning and so forth. We cannot bank on English words they have two many shades of meaning. That is why it is so hard for people of different countries who become American citizens have a hard time understanding it. I was born here and I have a hard time! I pray that you hang in there the truth will alway prevail and you will see!

With much respect and blessings!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stinsonmarri
6 hours ago, rudywoofs (Pam) said:

:)  not by all — and I think some of us have a bit more insight than supposed "experts" on linguistics and semantics.

Pam, it does not take an expert on linguistics and semantics. The Strong Dictionary is a Bible Dictionary. Also, Biblehub.com uses a lexicon which like the Strong and American English Dictionary breaks words down to their meaning. I never heard anyone question an American English Dictionary, that I had to learn in elementary how to use. I think that is how we learn our semantics. I still struggle with it today. If one needs to know what something mean don't you think it would be wise to find the actual meaning?

We use the Bible to learn how to travel to Heaven! Satan has thrown many false words that has become so common in the Bible. Now, I ask you why does the Bible continually say seek understanding? How do you propose we do that?

Blessings!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
B/W Photodude
On December 6, 2019 at 1:54 PM, 8thdaypriest said:

Satan is in prison during the 7th millennium.

"The rest of the dead lived not again until the 1000 years were finished."   IOW - at the 8th millennium. 

I do not agree with the SDA view that "the rest" are "the lost" who are to be raised, judged (again) and then burned up (again). 

I believe "the rest" will be those who (for whatever reason) were not able to CHOOSE whom they would serve.  They lived and died in ignorance because of immaturity (of age), disability, or lack of information (they died before the missionaries could reach them).   These people must be allowed to CHOOSE.  The only time frame I see for this, is during the 8th millennium. 

It helps to give all the context such as the second lone quote which comes from Revelation. Actually John writes the devil shall be loosed a little while, not a millennium.

Revelation 20:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
Revelation 20:5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.
Revelation 20:6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

You will notice that the righteous who are resurrected live and reign with Christ for a thousand years. But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were over. Nothing in all of this chapter makes any kind of reference to a "second chance." Not going to happen. 

One of the problems is that no one can come to God except by the influence of the Holy Spirit. I do not believe the Holy Spirit will be anymore calling those of the resurrection of damnation.

Jesus at the close of probation will declare that the filthy will remain filthy. And in John, Jesus clear states there is two resurrections - one to life and one to damnation.

John 5:29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

People often object to the idea that those who never heard of the gospel will be part of the second resurrection and have no chance at salvation. For those who read their Bibles, it is clear that God will judge some by what they should have known by "invisible things" of God's power. You can read this in Romans 1:20. Also, some who will not be saved also will not be resurrected to damnation. This is clearly written by Sister Ellen (for those who accept her writings) that some will be as they never were, but those who kept them from a knowledge of God will be responsible for their sins.

Conclusion: Only two resurrections and there will be no saving of those raised to damnation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JoeMo
9 hours ago, stinsonmarri said:

It is about what something actually means in the Bible. You nor I can change that! Remember we are to believe the truth.

I believe I "preach" what is in the Bible.  I believe I "preach" the truth as I understand it.  Just like you must remain faithful to what you believe is truth, I must do the same.  One or both of us is wrong. When I see things in the Bible that seem contradictory (like "the Lord will come when you least expect it" vs. "the Lord will come after wars, famines, disease, earthquakes, and cosmic celestial disturbances", my mind seeks ways to reconcile these apparent conflicts; because the Bible never conflicts with itself - it is my understanding that is conflicted.  The only way I can rectify the differences between the Group 1 and Group 2 scriptures given at the beginning of this thread is to think there are two parts to the Second Coming. Part 1 is Jesus coming FOR His saints prior to the outpouring of God's wrath; and Part 2 is Jesus coming WITH His saints to cleanse and rehabilitate the earth during a Millennium which is here on earth.  Outside of being told I'm wrong, no one has presented me with Biblical evidence showing my "errors".  Just because you see things differently than me doesn't mean I'm wrong and you're right.  The most likely scenario IMHO is that we are both wrong.  What IS wrong is trying to put God in a box by saying "this is how things must be".  When we try to put God in a box, He's probably gonna jump out to show us we can't put Him there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JoeMo
On 12/6/2019 at 6:51 PM, BlessedMan said:

"why would it be so important to "prove" as fact that "sons of God" MUST mean either "angels or Christ?" 

I'm not trying to "prove" anything; and your logic doesn't "prove" anything either. I am only trying to present the logic I use to reach my own personal conclusions.

Like I stated in an earlier post, I'm done discussing the "sons of God" thing here because my viewpoint is so unpopular with most people on this forum. I will discuss it elsewhere with people who are more open minded and aren't so quick to condemn "outside the box" thinking.

Several Bible translations agree with me that the "sons of God (B'nai HaElohim) are divine beings as well. See the CEB, CEV, EXB, GNT, ISV, and TLB, for example.  I'm not secure enough in my own "infallibility" to call these translations "wrong".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rudywoofs (Pam)
17 hours ago, stinsonmarri said:

Pam, it does not take an expert on linguistics and semantics. The Strong Dictionary is a Bible Dictionary. Also, Biblehub.com uses a lexicon which like the Strong and American English Dictionary breaks words down to their meaning. I never heard anyone question an American English Dictionary, that I had to learn in elementary how to use. I think that is how we learn our semantics. I still struggle with it today. If one needs to know what something mean don't you think it would be wise to find the actual meaning?

We use the Bible to learn how to travel to Heaven! Satan has thrown many false words that has become so common in the Bible. Now, I ask you why does the Bible continually say seek understanding? How do you propose we do that?

Blessings!

 

You (and everyone else) are free to do and think whatever you like.  My comment was to JoeMo, and was an endorsement of *his* beliefs based on *his* study.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JoeMo

Thank you, Pam.  I truly respect and appreciate your endorsement.  You probably know more about this stuff than I do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stinsonmarri
1 hour ago, rudywoofs (Pam) said:

 

You (and everyone else) are free to do and think whatever you like.  My comment was to JoeMo, and was an endorsement of *his* beliefs based on *his* study.

 

I am sorry that you were only conferring with Joe. However, we are here and we are suppose to be on the road to salvation. My concerns and I do respect Joe and he knows it, that we need to know the meaning of ancient words. No glory, no fame, just concern for truth and justice according to the Bible. Do we all have to make a choice, yes! But the Bible is clear about the word and that is where I stand. I am not here about forcing anyone, I here because I am committed to present the truth. I cannot save or make anyone believe; that's THE HOLY SPIRIT'S Work. Nothing can take the place of truth and it is sad to me that people get angry when we are to comment base on truth and facts. I run into the same attitude with people on the Commandments when giving Bible Studies. They see it but refuse to accept it. So that is all I can do is to present it and leave it up to THE HOLY SPIRIT and that individual to accept what he/she have read from the Bible.

I want all of us to be saved and I hope you do to. We all have to accept some things we use to believe and learn the truth about it. My mother already believe in the Sabbath, but had to give up pork that she loved. It was hard but she gave it up. I was a child and I remember because she was looking for those who kept the Sabbath. We all, including me believe things in error at one time, but the question is when we see the truth are we willing to give it up. I am determine not to miss out on Heaven and I will give up anything that is against YAHWEH'S Standards. I have and I will continue. I love you all and all I can do is to pray and leave the rest to THE HOLY SPIRIT!

Blessings on You!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JoeMo
1 hour ago, stinsonmarri said:

we need to know the meaning of ancient words. ... But the Bible is clear about the word and that is where I stand. ... Nothing can take the place of truth and it is sad to me that people get angry when we are to comment base on truth and facts. ... We all have to accept some things we use to believe and learn the truth about it.

With all due respect, your presentation of the alleged meaning of words is not necessarily any more or less correct than any other linguist's interpretation.  To my knowledge, Biblical Hebrew consisted of only about 1,500 root words; each with different nuances of meaning depending on the context - many that language experts can't agree on.  So why should consider your word studies any "truer" than theirs?

I don't necessarily agree that the Bible is clear about everything.  I believe that you stand on what you believe is "clear"; and I stand on what I see as clear; and they are indeed divergent opinions. If everything is so "clear", why are there over 50,000 different Christian "denominations"?  You worry about people being angry.  Who's angry? Personally, I do get upset when people seem to put me down when they disagree with me rather than present plain scripture to argue their point.  I probably shouldn't let it upset me if I'm dumb enough to post stuff that I know is going to set certain people off - even if I firmly believe it.  I find it discouraging that there are so few open-minded social beings on here any more.

Your right about people needing to let go of things they used to believe and learn the truth.  That means we need to be open to ideas that may clash with our own long-held pet theories.

One more little blast about fallen sons of God and their offspring the Nephillim - if we don't truly understand who these beings were/are, we will not understand when they make a comeback in the last days - like the 4th trumpet.

"The fifth angel sounded his trumpet, and I saw a star that had fallen from the sky to the earth. The star was given the key to the shaft of the Abyss. When he opened the Abyss, smoke rose from it like the smoke from a gigantic furnace. The sun and sky were darkened by the smoke from the Abyss. And out of the smoke locusts came down on the earth and were given power like that of scorpions of the earth. They were told not to harm the grass of the earth or any plant or tree, but only those people who did not have the seal of God on their foreheads. They were not allowed to kill them but only to torture them for five months. And the agony they suffered was like that of the sting of a scorpion when it strikes." (Rev. 9:1-5)

Why do I tie the 5th trumpet to the return of fallen angels and nephillim?

"As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man." (Matt. 24:37)

And how was it in the days of Noah?

"Some of their daughters were so beautiful that supernatural beings came down and married the ones they wanted. ... The children of the supernatural beings who had married these women became famous heroes and warriors. They were called Nephilim and lived on the earth at that time and even later." (Gen. 6:2, 4, CEV) and later:

"In fact, we saw the Nephilim who are the ancestors of the Anakim. They were so big that we felt as small as grasshoppers.Couldn't be more clear to me. (Numbers 13:33 CEV)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BlessedMan
23 hours ago, stinsonmarri said:

We use the Bible to learn how to travel to Heaven!

well; I disagree completely with one view that is being espoused here, but more on that later. IF this was our only reason for "reading" the Bible, or "using" the Bible, then I think we would be in trouble, when its really going to count. I read it to know God/Jesus, and what The Holy Spirit is saying to me. (John 17:3). This has been a very long struggle to understand that we don't "use" the Bible; rather, The Spirit uses us; The Word uses us, to make Him known. When we can realize this as we should, its not so important to engage in Bible Brinkmanship. But one major point is that there will be no "return" of any "fallen" angels, for they are already here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stinsonmarri
2 hours ago, JoeMo said:

With all due respect, your presentation of the alleged meaning of words is not necessarily any more or less correct than any other linguist's interpretation.  To my knowledge, Biblical Hebrew consisted of only about 1,500 root words; each with different nuances of meaning depending on the context - many that language experts can't agree on.  So why should consider your word studies any "truer" than theirs?

I don't necessarily agree that the Bible is clear about everything.  I believe that you stand on what you believe is "clear"; and I stand on what I see as clear; and they are indeed divergent opinions. If everything is so "clear", why are there over 50,000 different Christian "denominations"?  You worry about people being angry.  Who's angry? Personally, I do get upset when people seem to put me down when they disagree with me rather than present plain scripture to argue their point.  I probably shouldn't let it upset me if I'm dumb enough to post stuff that I know is going to set certain people off - even if I firmly believe it.  I find it discouraging that there are so few open-minded social beings on here any more.

Your right about people needing to let go of things they used to believe and learn the truth.  That means we need to be open to ideas that may clash with our own long-held pet theories.

One more little blast about fallen sons of God and their offspring the Nephillim - if we don't truly understand who these beings were/are, we will not understand when they make a comeback in the last days - like the 4th trumpet.

"The fifth angel sounded his trumpet, and I saw a star that had fallen from the sky to the earth. The star was given the key to the shaft of the Abyss. When he opened the Abyss, smoke rose from it like the smoke from a gigantic furnace. The sun and sky were darkened by the smoke from the Abyss. And out of the smoke locusts came down on the earth and were given power like that of scorpions of the earth. They were told not to harm the grass of the earth or any plant or tree, but only those people who did not have the seal of God on their foreheads. They were not allowed to kill them but only to torture them for five months. And the agony they suffered was like that of the sting of a scorpion when it strikes." (Rev. 9:1-5)

Why do I tie the 5th trumpet to the return of fallen angels and nephillim?

"As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man." (Matt. 24:37)

And how was it in the days of Noah?

"Some of their daughters were so beautiful that supernatural beings came down and married the ones they wanted. ... The children of the supernatural beings who had married these women became famous heroes and warriors. They were called Nephilim and lived on the earth at that time and even later." (Gen. 6:2, 4, CEV) and later:

"In fact, we saw the Nephilim who are the ancestors of the Anakim. They were so big that we felt as small as grasshoppers.Couldn't be more clear to me. (Numbers 13:33 CEV)

Joe: With all due respect the word is only mention 3 times in the Bible. But all of the scholar who believe in the angels chooses to pick the root word, "nâphal," which means fall, not the fallen ones. Here is the problem what people choose to do and that is make up words that the Hebrew root does not state at all. You then become upset, why because to your knowledge it has "1,500 root words; each with different nuances of meaning."The Hebrew root words that scholars want to claim has many so call shades of many? So our HEAVENLY FATHER Word is not true HE DOES NOT CHANGE? Because these Bible scholars today have stated this factual. Just like they stated that the language is Semitic and it is not! The Phonecians the Afrikan Canaanites created it.

YAHSHUA stated that angels do not marry, and THE FATHER Said when have HE ever call any angel HIS son! These Scriptures do not matter? I have not seen shades in ancient language like there are shades today. Even ancient Greek do not have shades that actually started in the Middle Ages. My question is why have a Bible, why believe that YAHWEH is real, why accept any of it if there is so many shades. We go back and forward on these things because we want to refute the obvious.

Now, Rev 9:1 is plain. John sees an angel fallen and it is a know fact that the angel was speeding just like a star. I explain earlier about the morning star and what it meant. So, now the superhumans along with the angels are release? No Scripture to back this up. YAHSHUA didn't say it, YAHWEH never claimed it at all. The Bible said very clear that Adam was made a little lower than the angels, but nothing anywhere that you claim. The Bible in Jude and Peter states clear that Satan angels were place in prison and a special angel had the key. Same angel instead being a star, takes Satan and throw him in prison.

You know Joe, we think everything center around just this earth. Really! YAHWEH stated that HIS SON created the worlds and everything. But we think that everything has to be just about the earth. If you read Job, when YAHWEH spoke to him, YAHWEH stated where was he when made all things. On earth and beyond! Do we think we are the only ones, just us? We can't even fathom to realize that like the Adams which I brought a long time ago, that Rachel stated that son in Hebrew also means children! We are not the only world and that is what so sad. You don't even see that Satan tried to tempt them as well. We are the only one that fail. These beings had to be lock down are they would have destroyed this earth. Here were are dealing with them wanted to have sex with flesh beings, really? When they are constantly known to destroyed everything in site. You seem not to remember in Luke, YAHSHUA dealt with a man that had a legion of angels torquing him. Yet, the man recognize YAHSHUA and he freed him from the legions of evil angels. They begged not return to prison, (scholars change that too, causing again confusion), so they ask mind you to go into the swine. They have to ask, yet they can take flesh woman and have sex, really! They cause the swine to go crazy and killed themselves. Now, this story could be told and Job learn about the mysteries of the Universe, but we can't know the truth about the angels. They can't even killed the wicked unless THE ALMIGHTY allows them. But yet they can take flesh beings for sex when they want!  You want it to be accepted like those people in the days of Noah convince them that there would be no flood! The Garden of Eden was still there at that time, so they knew. There was a flood and you have not yet, told me how did these superhuman die in a flood? When we are trying to make sense of things as believers of the Bible, we should not get angry. We need to come and reason together, the Bible said or is that a nuance too? What should we believe is my question with so many nuances. THE HOLY SPIRIT is obsolete if that be the case! YAHWEH just chose a language to confuse us and to tried to make the Bible to say what we want! What the use to many nuances to know right for wrong! Is this our fate Joe? I want to know! Finally, you cannot use "nephilim," wrong word, the scholar uses the root word "nâpha." And they do not tell the truth it only means fall. I haven't seen shades can you show me? I am serious! 

Take care be blessed! I will all respect you and pray for you!

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BlessedMan
2 hours ago, JoeMo said:

"As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man." (Matt. 24:37)

And how was it in the days of Noah?

"Some of their daughters were so beautiful that supernatural beings came down and married the ones they wanted. ... The children of the supernatural beings who had married these women became famous heroes and warriors. They were called Nephilim and lived on the earth at that time and even later." (Gen. 6:2, 4, CEV) and later:

I have 48 different Bible versions, and I see you have picked the only one that makes this false claim.  "As it was in the days of Noah," includes much beyond such an isolated idea. This has nothing to do with "nuances" or "interpretations" or "grammar. WHEN context is considered; this will not even enter the minds of anyone still alive when Jesus returns.  This has nothing to do with "in the days of Noah," without understanding whats going on. Strongs provides us with some pretty clear context on "the sons of God" re Gen 6:2

Quote

"H5303
נְפִל    נְפִיל
nephı̂yl    nephil
nef-eel', nef-eel'
From H5307; properly, a feller, that is, a bully or tyrant: - giant.
Total KJV occurrences: 3

Will we have "bullies" and "tyrants" in the last days? Of course we will! We already do! And thats exactly what Noah was dealing with too. Im still looking for a text that says "Jesus will return twice."  Its not in any of the Bibles that I have. If He can't do it right the first time then why on earth do we even talk about Him?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stinsonmarri
20 minutes ago, BlessedMan said:

well; I disagree completely with one view that is being espoused here, but more on that later. IF this was our only reason for "reading" the Bible, or "using" the Bible, then I think we would be in trouble, when its really going to count. I read it to know God/Jesus, and what The Holy Spirit is saying to me. (John 17:3). This has been a very long struggle to understand that we don't "use" the Bible; rather, The Spirit uses us; The Word uses us, to make Him known. When we can realize this as we should, its not so important to engage in Bible Brinkmanship. But one major point is that there will be no "return" of any "fallen" angels, for they are already here.

Blessed Man: Just take time to read 2Peter 2:4-5, 9; Jude 1:6 and pray about it then get back with me. I going to bed I just got off work. Had to work tomorrow. Waiting to hear from you!

Blessings and love!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stinsonmarri
5 minutes ago, BlessedMan said:

I have 48 different Bible versions, and I see you have picked the only one that makes this false claim.  "As it was in the days of Noah," includes much beyond such an isolated idea. This has nothing to do with "nuances" or "interpretations" or "grammar. WHEN context is considered; this will not even enter the minds of anyone still alive when Jesus returns.  This has nothing to do with "in the days of Noah," without understanding whats going on. Strongs provides us with some pretty clear context on "the sons of God" re Gen 6:2

Joe: I am tired but I promise, I will show you. Pray for me as I pray for you. I have been working and have to go to bed. 

Blessings!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JoeMo
23 hours ago, JoeMo said:

See the CEB, CEV, EXB, GNT, ISV, and TLB, for example.

 

9 hours ago, BlessedMan said:

have 48 different Bible versions, and I see you have picked the only one that makes this false claim.

Wrong, there are at least 5 other translations that make this claim. There are also dozens of ministries that teach what I propose. Of course, none of them are Adventist, because most Adventists don't believe anything that EGW didn't endorse or talk about.

9 hours ago, stinsonmarri said:

Just like they stated that the language is Semitic and it is not! The Phonecians the Afrikan Canaanites created it.

This was new to me, so I did some research. I now agree that at least part of the Hebrew language had its origins in the upper Nile region (Cush) and Egypt.

The biggest reason people refuse to believe that the B'nai HaElohim (sons of God) in the OT were fallen angels is because they think it is too weird.  They prefer to accept the toned-down Sethite version promulgated by the Catholic Church.  Is what I propose any weirder than believing in a burning bush that talks, talking donkeys, staffs that turn into snakes, rivers that turn into blood, dead people returning to life, extra-terrestrial beings (angels) coming down from the sky to speak to us, a baby born of a virgin, or a man levitating up into the sky, only to return 2,000 years later, or the earth opening up and spewing out demons?  All of it sounds like fodder for a great fantasy TV series, except we believe it to be true.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BlessedMan
21 minutes ago, JoeMo said:

Wrong, there are at least 5 other translations that make this claim. 

then all five of them make false claims. Its a very poor translation of that passage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JoeMo
21 minutes ago, BlessedMan said:

then all five of them make false claims. Its a very poor translation of that passage.

There are six more translations that define B'nai Ha Elohim as angels/supernatural beings than translate it as sons of Seth.  In fact there are ZERO translations that call them the sons of Seth.

It's comforting to know that members of this forum have a better grip on understanding ancient Hebrew than entire committees of language experts who have made these translations.  I wish I had their divine inspiration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


If you find some value to this community, please help out with a few dollars per month.



×
×
  • Create New...