Kiwivillan

Agreed so how would the Psalmist King David so accurately describe an embryo? My post from above... David was the second king of Israel. He comes from the bloodline of Adam and Eve, Son of Cain etc. Were Adam and Eve Jewish too?

Julie, Who are the people of the old testament that the bible mainly speaks about?

What? Hormones? Show me where in the bible it supports this nonsense you speak of.

Really?!!... It is HIGHLY unusual for me NOT to back up what I've said. I had a discussion with you earlier about Jesus and Barabbas and I knew exactly what scriptures backed up what I'd posted in response to you. You're wrong about Barabbas but I don't expect anything less from a person that mindlessly reads every word of the bible as literal truth, failing to acknowledge the fact that in parts it has gone through 3 different language translations. It is your inflexiblity that is your downfall. You are doomed to believe in what you are instructed as a law of sorts. This unsurprising of people who did not grow up with religion but chose on their own volition and extremely so of a brainwashing cult like JW.

I'd say the world's a fantastic place compared to the shit that went down in the bible. If the world woke up tomorrow and religion didn't exist, now that would be a much more harmonious society. It's the fundamentalists hanging on to this retarded notions of a fairy king coming down from the sky that is the reason for most of what's **** up in soceity.

You can't use scripture to back up an assertion that you believe in because you have been instructed to believe that way. The bible is a book. It is not the word of god. It is a device to control people. It didn't exist until well along in the chain of man's existence on earth. Do you want me to put a list of "actual" scientists who believe and will attest to the above?

For those of you that are quick to write off the existence of the Nephilim, I ask you... How the **** do you explain this?

Holy shit. That's some funny shit.

Why is Jesus Christ put against Jesus Barabbas when they are clearly the same person?

Why was Jesus mentioned twice by different names at Pontius Pilate trial?

And I forgot to realise early on that people that are religious have a monopoly on the bible and its interpretation.

You choose a lifestyle to promote a religious choice on others that have no interest. I have knowledge beyond the average knowledge of a non-religious person. I have decided it is a load of nonsense. That does not preclude me from pointing out discrepencies in your interpretation. How can I possibly catch you out? You are clearly so far down the rabbit hole you can not discern between what you are instructed to believe and anything else.

In other words once these "foregoing ones" the Angels had materialised and made themselves Demons by forsaking their spiritual bodies and materialising and "gone after flesh for unnatural use"......... thereon at the Flood these Angels were stopped from materialising as physical beings and imprisoned in their spiritual bodies as he states they were "reserved in eternal bonds"... ie restricted. Holy crap. You are pinning your whole argument on one passage in Jude against no other evidence in the other 65 books of the bible. Very, very shaky ground. For ease of explanation 1. There is no mention at all of “the sons of God” coming down from heaven. 2. Why assume these “sons of God” are angels? The phrase is used concerning men, especially those who know the true God (Deut. 14:1 (R.S.V.); Hos. 1:10; Lk. 3:38; Jn 1:12; 1 Jn. 3:1). 3. If believers are to be made equal to angels (Lk. 20:35-36), will they still experience the same carnal desires which then motivated the sons of God, or have the possibility of giving way to them? Of course not! 4. Luke 20:35-36, clearly says that the angels do not marry: “They which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage...for they are equal unto the angels”. 5. It is commonly believed that the angels who are thought to have sinned came down to earth at the time of the garden of Eden incidents, but Genesis 6 concerns the time of the flood, which was many years later. 6. The Hebrew word for “giants” in Genesis 6:4, is also used to describe the sons of a man called Anak in Numbers 13:33. Freak human beings of unusual size or strength are sometimes born today, but it does not mean that their parents were angels. 7. We are not specifically told that the giants were the children of the “sons of God”. “There were giants…and also after that…the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men” (:4). 8. If Angels married women, then who were the children, and what were they like? The apocryphal book of 1 Enoch claims that the offspring were "evil spirits" and witches (1 Enoch 15:8-16:1)- but the Bible is utterly silent about this.

Yawn still going on about JW and the Nazis. What a boring side-issue that Julie is happy to contend to distract from the absurd interpretations of the bible.

Luke 20:34-36 Jesus says: "The children of this world marry, but they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage: Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are children of God, being the children of the resurrection" So there you have it. Angels can't have sex. I'm not a proponent of the bible but was made study it in the past. You are and you have an unbelievable misconception.

I thought you believed in the bible literally and now you are saying something that is never mentioned in the bible? Wow! Are you creating you own new religion? Apparently according to steaknchips I have read the bible but not understood it. Quite clearly you or someone that has told you has misinterpreted the bible as above. Is that just the tip of the iceberg? Do you incorporate Van Daniken's theories into your religious beliefs or just new earth creationists?

Woah. You cannot be saying this refers to angels? Yes who else could be "the Sons of the True God"? It wasn't a sin for men to marry at all.. it was the angels who came down to earth or forsook their original position to take human wives. (Jude 6) . . . The next mention of Sons of the True God occurs in Job 1:6 in a heavenly setting... So how could Genesis 6 verse 2 be referring to anything other than angels? who foorsook their proper dwelling place to take on physical bodies. The Bible calls the offspring of those marriages the Nephilim... (Genesis 6:4) 4 The Nephilim would have been wiped out by the flood of Noah's day which is why Halloween is the most important date of the Satanist calendar because it memorialises the death of the Sons of the Demons or Fallen Angels who mated with the daughters of men... and the dead who died at the flood! And I posted lots of references to Halloween and the Flood previously in cultures from across the globe. Goodness. Complete and utter fail. 1. Taking wives implies having sex which you must know angels don't have sex. 2. Daughters and Sons of Men are often refered to in the bible as non-followers of God as opposed to followers or "sons of the [true] God" 3. According to the bible The Flood was caused by the sins of men not sins of angels so they can't be angels. What you referenced in chapter 6 led up to the flood. Absolutely astonishing failure of interpretation that completely contradicts well-held beliefs. I don't why you keep bringing up the Halloween-Great Flood connection as it has nothing to do with the bible but a stupid book written by some new earth creationists, therefore, redundant.

Woah. You cannot be saying this refers to angels? C'mon Julie, I must press you for an answer...

Woah. You cannot be saying this refers to angels?

Is there a prequel to the bible which talks about the rad time God had with the angels before he created everything?

Psalms is the 19th book of the bible. Where does it say he created the devil/angels in the creation story? Isaiah is not talking about an angel but you would no that if you had properly read, researched and understood the bible. Don't tell me you make the mistake of taking metaphors in the bible literally? Why does it have to be mentioned in the creation story for mankind? I think it's fundamentally important to the narrative but if you want to gloss over it that says an awful lot about you.

Psalms is the 19th book of the bible. Where does it say he created the devil/angels in the creation story? Isaiah is not talking about an angel but you would no that if you had properly read, researched and understood the bible. Don't tell me you make the mistake of taking metaphors in the bible literally?

The Bible doesn't say God created Lucifer.. he created an angel that was perfect but had free will. This angel turned himself into Satan or the Devil by opposing and slandering God. Lucifer actually translates as light bearer or shining one and the scripture at (Isaiah 14:12) . . ."O how you have fallen from heaven, you shining one, son of the dawn! How you have been cut down to the earth, you who were disabling the nations!" relates that Satan was a fallen angel who turned himself into God's enemy - both he and his invisible organisation who are misleading the nations. Where in Genesis does it say he created this angel? Isaiah is talking about a fallen Babylonian king, not a fallen angel actually, but you knew that right?