It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The sons of god and the giants

page: 2
10
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 18 2020 @ 06:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Seede

“The problem with science today is that they cannot connect the Sumerian king list with Judaism or Christianity and the only connection that exists is the Hebrew bible and the Sumerian king list. In that lies the problem of modern science.”

You hit the nail right on the head with this statement, modern science and religion are outcome driven with no room for any item outside of their predetermined outcome. The Smithsonian raped this land to hide or rearrange evidence of it's true history of the land and people.




posted on May, 19 2020 @ 08:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Seede

I believe that, according to Prov 8:22-24 (if chronologically recorded here), God made the earth as a way to exalt the one he possessed in the beginning of his ways, then he made the Depth of space and put the earth out into it along with fountains of water. (take note that the new earth has no seas (Rev 22:1) and I believe the original did not either.

God sent Lucifer with his hand picked angles to create a throne. Lucifer when iniquity was found in him (Ezk 28) began to desire to exalt this throne above all (Isa 14:12).

It was then he released water from its decreed place (fountains see Prov 8) and flooded the earth and the space around it and that is where Gen 1:2 we see the Holy Ghost above the face of the waters. This is where Lucifer became Satan and his angels devils. Some were on the earth at the time and were put into the bottomless pit until the Tribulation. And the rest are still here, there and in the air.
edit on 5/19/2020 by ChesterJohn because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 19 2020 @ 08:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: strongfp
Possibly, but it does depend on what the Hebrew word actually means.
How about just believing the English word as it is found in the KJV?

You see your problem? You don't believe the word of God as it is, as it is found, where it is written in the Holy Bible.



edit on 5/19/2020 by ChesterJohn because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 20 2020 @ 01:31 AM
link   
a reply to: ChesterJohn
You have chosen to stop serving the Gof of truth.
Until I see signs of repentance, I will have no dealings with you.



posted on May, 20 2020 @ 05:38 PM
link   
a reply to: DISRAELI

You are completely false. As ALL false prophets are.

You couldn't understand the truth int eh Holy Bible because you don't have one. What you have are copies and other mens opinions. You haven't revealed on truth that hasn't been seen since 1880'w when the RSV came out.



posted on May, 21 2020 @ 12:23 PM
link   
a reply to: ChesterJohn


I believe that, according to Prov 8:22-24 (if chronologically recorded here), God made the earth as a way to exalt the one he possessed in the beginning of his ways, then he made the Depth of space and put the earth out into it along with fountains of water. (take note that the new earth has no seas (Rev 22:1) and I believe the original did not either.

Hi Chester. Bless you and may God keep using you for His glory.
Now Chester i realize that we do not agree on some matters but I do not want to leave the impression that my beliefs are the only valid beliefs either. Down through the many years of my life i have changed opinions many times as people have shown me wrong and i am willing to reevaluate my beliefs if i can understand where i am wrong. As you may understand i am Christian Jew by adoption and even well past 90 years i am still learning. With that all said, i do not agree or perhaps am misunderstanding you.

I am not understanding you in "God made the earth" Do you mean He created the earth or formed the creation of earth? I am not being picky but ask this because in my understanding the Spirit God created nothing in our understanding. The Apostle John tells us that God brought forth His image after His likeness and we know this entity as "The Word Of God". It was this entity named "Word" that created all that is in heaven and in this universe. This world and this universe were formed from the creation of earth and water but the earth and water came from unknowable sources. Here lies the problem in most all religions.

Gen 1:1 -2
(1) In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
(2) And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

Now the Apostle John tells that --
John 1:1-3
(1) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(2) The same was in the beginning with God.
(3) All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Both Moses and John have said that in the beginning God and "Word" were present.
Proverbs 8:22-30
(22) The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old.
(23) I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was.
(24) When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water.
(25) Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth:
(26) While as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the highest part of the dust of the world.
(27) When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth:
(28) When he established the clouds above: when he strengthened the fountains of the deep:
(29) When he gave to the sea his decree, that the waters should not pass his commandment: when he appointed the foundations of the earth:
(30) Then I was by him, as one brought up with him: and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him;

Here lays the problem in interpretation. Some say that the "Word" was with God but had no creative power and they cite 'Proverbs chapter 8 to prove their point. Just as we have read here, the "Word" is shown as being with God and observing Gods handiwork but no mention of the "Word" being the Creator.

Then we can go to Colossians and are led to a different account.
Col 1:14 -17
(15) In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
(15) Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
(16) For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
(17) And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

The argument is from the words "by Him" --- If we interpret those words as because of him then we can accept Proverbs account but if we interpret "by Him" to mean that He [The Word] created then we have a disagreement. Now if you read Colossians 1:15-17 you will see that [all things were created by him and for him. So where do we go from here? We have a disagreement in that "The Word" created in the NT and that God created in the OT. Is this to say that there were two entities in creation or one entity in creation.

We have the same problem in the Genesis account as we read --
Gen 1:26 --
(26) And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

According to this account there are more than one who created man. Who is the "our" in this account? Is it the same circumstance as in the Proverbs account? The mystery of two in one is brought into play here. But in
Proverbs how can one be the observer and the observed at the same time?

Perhaps you can shed a little light on this.



posted on May, 21 2020 @ 05:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Seede

Connect Gen 1:1 to Prov 8:22-24.

How are those two verses connected you may ask, by the word God chose to use "Beginning".

be blessed and remember some divisions are made a comma, periods, colons and semi-colons.

If I said made it inferred Created.



posted on May, 22 2020 @ 02:14 PM
link   
a reply to: DISRAELI


The first four verses of Genesis ch6 form a famously obscure passage. I suggest that the key to understanding them is to remember that Genesis is a work of theology, more than a work of history. It presents a series of theological statements;

Yes but in addition to that is the abundant literature that is considered outside literature. Jubilees, Manichaean Book of Giants, Enoch, Genesis Apocryphon, 3 Baruch, Damascus Document, Visions in Daniel and much more literature. But the most convincing of all that I have read is centered in the dead sea scrolls. Even though there are many MSS by different sources and authors, the dead sea scrolls of 4Q203, 1Q23, 2Q26, 4Q530-532, 6Q8 have revealed two almost complete copies of the giants story in Aramaic. This along with the complete book of Enoch of Ethiopia has convinced me that Enoch was taught just as the Nazarene congregation of James has claimed in their remnants of history. So along with other outside literature this has taught me that the Genesis account is but a mention of the Great Giants of Genesis.

So this can pose a problem for many readers. Do we read this literature and then put all of this in the same category as being theology or can we read some of these accounts as history? The reason i look at this is the fact that Josephus is regarded as a historian and yet in his work of book 1 and chapter 3;1 he clearly identifies Enoch's giants as history. Can we opine that it is theology or regard this as history?



posted on May, 22 2020 @ 03:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Seede
We also need to make room for other categories, such as "intended to be history, but not working as history because non-historical statements have been incorporated into them."
Josephus may think his statement is history, but that doesn't mean that we have to agree with him. As an old student of history, I get tough on these things. I don't even accept everything the Chronicler writes as history (because he has a clear agenda).
The Dead Sea scrolls are later literature interpreting the Genesis statement.



posted on May, 22 2020 @ 11:41 PM
link   
Just a question, if theology is not history then what is theology? Imagination? Wishful thinking?

That's like claiming faith is blind belief.



posted on May, 22 2020 @ 11:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Out6of9Balance
My first thought is that theology has a broader definition. It is a matter of interpreting things in terms of God. The statement that God created the world could be regarded as God-centred science or God-centred philosophy. My point is that the statement that God made the world in seven days is not history or science unless it happened literally. If it did not happen literally, then that detail is certainly imagination, elaborating on the fundamental theological point about the relationship between God and the world. The fundamental theological point itself is not imagination if it comes from God. That is why we need to distinguish between the theological structure and the detail.




edit on 22-5-2020 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 23 2020 @ 10:32 PM
link   
If people would look at the scriptures not for what they teach or what they mean but rather just take it for what it says, a whole lot of confusion would be avoided.

The Holy Bible interprets itself, defines itself and connect itself and there is no need for anyone to teach once a man has the Holy Ghost.



posted on May, 25 2020 @ 05:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
If people would look at the scriptures not for what they teach or what they mean but rather just take it for what it says, a whole lot of confusion would be avoided.

The Holy Bible interprets itself, defines itself and connect itself and there is no need for anyone to teach once a man has the Holy Ghost.


You are absolute correct many only parrot what they have been taught by those who have been taught specific doctrinal positions. Rather than take out the bible along with a concordance and English Greek dictionaries, they would rather read a commentary on the subject, by those who have already taken a doctrinal stance on the subject
edit on 25-5-2020 by PhilbertDezineck because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2020 @ 06:26 PM
link   
a reply to: PhilbertDezineck
Your answer to that poster makes me chuckle quietly, because I know how much he HATES people who look at Greek texts and concordances. This is a man who thinks that "scholar" is a dirty word. You are going to be told that "looking at the scriptures" means reading the Authorised Version only.




edit on 25-5-2020 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2020 @ 06:56 PM
link   
a reply to: DISRAELI I will concur that many of the new translations are not worth the paper they are printed on.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1   >>

log in

join