Hadith Explained: Satan Breaking Wind (Farting)



Categories: Hadith

161 replies

  1. Hi
    This is pathetic! Talking about horses passing wind and children dying, and then pass it off as something that critics will use to criticise Islam with.

    Let’s be honest when were these Hadiths compiled and who actually memorised them over the years? How many years after the prophet?

    Like

  2. why is is pathetic? Give your actual reasons

    Like

    • Hi Paul
      It’s pathetic because of what the guy on the video was saying that Satan plays with your bowels, if you don’t enter the toilet left foot first and say a certain word(s)

      Like

  3. This is why I say yahyaslimw is a joke like the sunnah: https://youtu.be/g5wR8R7XGz4

    Liked by 1 person

    • It is clear that western Muslims are embarrassed and ashamed of their Islamic texts so they have to reinvent the religion to suit their own tastes.

      Like

    • LOL

      Wow; that was hilarious and really really embarrassing for Islam. (the Sheikh admitted the Hadith says these things and that if you don’t pray the dua and put your left forward into the toilet room, the Shaytan will play with your bowels.)

      Wow, what an embarrassing religion. Wow. . .

      Like

    •  

      With the name of Allah

       

      It is silly watching these trinitarian missionaries like shame-on who mock something they dont really understand well.

      Even when the narrations are to be understood on face value, there is nothing wrong with that. The jinn are similar to human in their behaviour , social structure. They eat drink,  marry etc.

      However the word durooth  ‘ضرط’ in classical arabic does  not necessarily imply straightforward meaning. One who learn classical arabic know also recognise fact that the word  durooth ‘ضرط’ is never limited to this particular understanding only.

      Classical arabic is rich in metaphors , and this word is no execption.  In the book of  ” Collection of parables” جمع الأمثال  by  Imaam Abu Al Fadli Miidani الإمام أبو الفضل الميداني

      it is written:

      ونز فالرجل فيالخصومة: انقطعت حجته، وفي مثل: هو أجبن من المنزوف ضرطا

      (انظر: مجمع الأمثال 1/180؛ والأمثال ص 367)

      It is explicitly mentioned that the word duroot in sentence “أجبن من المنزوف ضرط” is something to do with scared or frightened as in cowardice. Like a man who has deserted from his battle is more coward than one who  duroot (lit: release gas from stomach) , the book explained. So the word carries metaphoric expression  not in literal sense.

      The approach of this kind of  is also well founded and strong.

       

      Also in Lane Arabic-English Lexicon mention this. On page 1786 of the dictionary under the definition of ‘ضرط’ we find the following:

      duroot.png

      It is explicitly mentioned that these are proverbs. It is taken as a figure of speech and not in literal sense.

      So Missionaries and Islamophobes have a lot to learn than resorting cheap polemics.

       

      Liked by 1 person

    • Brilliant reply, brother Eric! Jazak Allah Khair!

      Liked by 1 person

    • In addition to what brother Eric said, releasing gas is still metaphorically associated with a sense of cowardice in modern Arabic. Those who speak Arabic will no doubt recognise that in the phrase “toz fi america” which is sometimes used to express sentiment against American invasion and influence. It is understood as something like “in reality America can do nothing”.

      The same is true for English and probably many other languages. One might say for example, the Israel i army found its confidence in its military superiority deflated — that is, humbled and diminshed, not literally releasing gas — and had to turn back after a couple of weeks spent in the south of Lebanon.

      Liked by 1 person

  4. Excruciating to watch. The poor guy with the fez was trying so hard not to crack up – I feel for him.

    Like

  5. right. A spirit can pass gas. right. did the spirit/demon/Shatan eat food, and digest it, and it went to his bowels and the digestive juices and acids make it into physical gas? right.

    Like

    • LOL, right because you know a lot spirits personally! Did the holy spirit tell you how Satan functions? How is that going? Your holy spirit coming out soon? 😉

      Do you often wonder how an angel will be able to bind Satan and seal him up in the “Abyss” for a thousand years? A spirit can be tied up and locked in a pit? Right…

      Or how about those “sons of god” who had sex with human women? How’d that happen? Did these “sons of god” impregnate the women with their semen? Right…

      And by the way, you silly Christian, the Jinn do eat according to the Ahadith. So, your ludicrous polemic against this particular hadith is more the result of your ignorance and interjecting your own interpolations into it. You Christians do that a lot, even with your own Bible! But your a priori beliefs don’t determine whether a specific hadith is believable or not.

      Like

    • Hi Faiz
      Your language and attitude is quite childish.

      It is obviously blatant to everyone that the “farting” episode is embarrassing but you can’t swallow if you have to try and find something in the bible.

      1. The Holy Spirit coming out…there is some serious blasphemy right there.

      2. The binding of Satan…there is nothing wrong with the spiritual binding of the enemy of God,
      2Pe 2:4 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;

      There is nothing wrong with Gods angels or even God himself overpowering the fallen spirits.

      3. Genesis 6 if you want to believe that demons had sex with women and had children that’s up to you, oh I forgot and they got married as well.

      It’s real funny that you say it’s demons causing yet it is man who is held accountable for the sin in the earth.

      Gen 6:3 And the LORD 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.L

      Gen 6:5 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 evil continually.
      Gen 6:6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
      Gen 6:7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

      God didn’t say anything about destroying man mixed with demon off the earth.

      Then you are calling Ken stupid you are so deceived that you think only Muslims have the intelligence to explain scripture.

      Did Allah tell Muhammad that Satan farted? That’s real spiritual truth for you lol

      Like

  6. Interesting that the “Qur’an Only” movement started from Muslims being embarrassed about this Hadith, because it is so ridiculous, they realized a spirit / demon cannot pass gas / fart / break wind.

    And switching the subject to horses and being around animals (and, probably implied being around camels ) – horses and camels are physical, but Jinn / demons/ evil spirits are not physical and they do not eat food, so the whole Hadith is discredited as goofy and absurd.

    Like

  7. I was referring to the You tube that Sam put up.

    The one that is really embarrassing for Islam and the Hadith commentators and the Sheikh refutes Yahya “snow job”.

    Like

  8. I think that interpretation is sufficient. Satan runs away very fast, in much the same way as horses, camels etc , accelerate from a standing position, farting loudly as they go. Makes great sense. Before hearing this clip I might have thought that hadith dubious, but now I have no problem with it.
    It could be also a reference to hypocrites of the time, they hear the adhaan and make excuses not to join in prayer, then scurry off leaving the sincere ones bemused, and Muhammad (saw) might have said it in jest “Look, the satan runs away passing wind (at horse-like speed) when he hears the adhaan.
    Totally acceptable even for the most skeptical Quranist.
    “Be ‘umble and patient, and we can absorb much needed understanding, but when we lash out immediately at something we don’t yet understand, we end up shamefaced and remorseful.

    Like

    • spirits / demons / Shatan cannot eat or digest food or pass gas (fart), because they are not physical beings.

      The Sheikh is a higher authority (doesn’t he have to have gone through education to become a “Sheikh” ?) than Yahya snow-job, so his interpretation is more credible, but also more embarrassing for Islam and the credibility of the Hadith.

      The “sons of God” in Genesis 6 are not evil spirits, but men who were following God, “of God”, whereas the contrast was with the “daughters of men” (women who were worldly and did not follow God, but were “of mankind” in their thinking. The beautiful women tempted the men because of their beauty. Some commentators take “sons of God” to be fallen angels, or demon possessed men, but I don’t agree with that interpretation, because of the way Jesus describes angels and spirits in Matthew 22:29-30 (spirits cannot have physical sex; they cannot get married).

      The binding of Satan is metaphorical, meaning he is stopped by the power of God from deceiving the nations anymore during that time.

      A good article on the Genesis 6 passage:
      http://www.equip.org/article/who-were-the-sons-of-god-in-genesis-6/

      Like

    • “The Sheikh is a higher authority …”…….there is no hierarchy..whoever gets it right carries the debate.

      Like

  9. Also a good clip on how ridiculous it is to take the “sons of God” in Genesis 6 as fallen angels who had sex with women. (critique of Jimmy Swaggart’s view, who was discredited a long time ago)

    http://www.equip.org/doctrine/who-are-the-sons-of-god-in-genesis-6/

    Like

  10. LOL, it seems I’ve struck a chord with the reference to Genesis 6 and the “sons of god”. The Christians are a bit embarrassed having realized that they are barking up the wrong tree!

    Ken said:

    “spirits / demons / Shatan cannot eat or digest food or pass gas (fart), because they are not physical beings.”

    LOL, but you still don’t know any spiritual beings personally do you? So how can you say how they function? Moreover, why do you assume that when Satan passes gas, he does it the same way humans do? Tell me, when the Bible says that God “sees”, does it mean that He literally sees with 2 eyes which have an iris, a lens, vitreous humor, a retina, rods and cones etc?

    You are a silly man! Your holy spirit hasn’t given you intelligence, it seems. 😉

    “The Sheikh is a higher authority (doesn’t he have to have gone through education to become a “Sheikh” ?) than Yahya snow-job, so his interpretation is more credible, but also more embarrassing for Islam and the credibility of the Hadith.”

    LOL, and yet when a “higher authority” like Mike Licona says that the Bible is corrupted, the know-it-all Ken thinks he has the authority to overrule and disagree with him. But apparently, Muslims cannot overrule “higher authorities” like a sheik. Christian logic strikes again!

    “The “sons of God” in Genesis 6 are not evil spirits, but men who were following God, “of God”, whereas the contrast was with the “daughters of men” (women who were worldly and did not follow God, but were “of mankind” in their thinking. The beautiful women tempted the men because of their beauty. Some commentators take “sons of God” to be fallen angels, or demon possessed men, but I don’t agree with that interpretation, because of the way Jesus describes angels and spirits in Matthew 22:29-30 (spirits cannot have physical sex; they cannot get married).”

    Oh, you sly snake! A bit embarrassed, eh? So, what authority do you have to not agree with “some commentators”?

    Shall I show you the reality of these verses? Get ready for some more embarrassment! Remember, you asked for it!

    Here are two excellent articles from Christians that analyze Genesis 6 and come to the conclusion that the “sons of god” were fallen angels, and thus, spiritual beings:

    http://www.khouse.org/articles/1997/110/

    https://bible.org/seriespage/7-sons-god-and-daughters-men-genesis-61-8

    What is interesting is that the earliest authorities understood the “sons of god” to be fallen angels! According to the first source:

    “The strange events recorded in Genesis 6 were understood by the ancient rabbinical sources, as well as the Septuagint translators, as referring to fallen angels procreating weird hybrid offspring with human women-known as the “Nephilim.” So it was also understood by the early church fathers.”

    Ouch! But it gets worse for Ken, It seems that later authorities strayed from the traditional teaching because of incessant attacks by critics. The first source states:

    “It was in the 5th century a.d. that the “angel” interpretation of Genesis 6 was increasingly viewed as an embarrassment when attacked by critics. (Furthermore, the worship of angels had begun within the church. Also, celibacy had also become an institution of the church. The “angel” view of Genesis 6 was feared as impacting these views.)

    Celsus and Julian the Apostate used the traditional “angel” belief to attack Christianity. Julius Africanus resorted to the Sethite interpretation as a more comfortable ground. Cyril of Alexandria also repudiated the orthodox “angel” position with the “line of Seth” interpretation. Augustine also embraced the Sethite theory and thus it prevailed into the Middle Ages. It is still widely taught today among many churches who find the literal “angel” view a bit disturbing. There are many outstanding Bible teachers who still defend this view. ”

    Double ouch!

    But wait, here is some evidence straight from the Bible that confirms the “fallen angel” interpretation:

    “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. Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire” (Jude 6).

    Triple ouch!

    “The binding of Satan is metaphorical, meaning he is stopped by the power of God from deceiving the nations anymore during that time.”

    So then why can’t Satan farting also be metaphorical, as many classical Islamic scholars thought?

    “A good article on the Genesis 6 passage:
    http://www.equip.org/article/who-were-the-sons-of-god-in-genesis-6/“”

    The above articles refute this apologetic garbage. Christians are too embarrassed so they have to reinterpret Genesis 6. LOL!!

    Liked by 1 person

  11. Defendchrist,

    You’re obviously upset at the embarrassing truth about your Bible (i.e. fallen angels having sex with human women). Read the articles I linked above. They do a good job of destroying the revisionist arguments of people like you.

    By the way, I don’t blaspheme the holy spirit who is the blessed Gabriel (as). I simply mock Ken’s self-righteous judging of others by pointing out the holes in his theology and his inability to prove that he has the “holy spirit”. Christians like to make these wild claims, but they can never prove them. If they want to live in that fantasy world, that’s their business. But when they act righteous and judge others, I have no qualms against mocking them and putting them in their place. I get a kick out of it! So stop your whining. 😉

    Like

  12. Here is further proof that the “sons of God” in Genesis 6 were angels. In Job 1, it states:

    “One day the angels[a] came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan[b] also came with them” (Job 1:6, NIV).

    Notice the term “angels”. But there is a footnote in the NIV, which states:

    “Hebrew the sons of God” (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=job+1&version=NIV).

    So, in the original Hebrew, the verse refers to the “sons of God”. Here is the Hebrew:

    http://biblehub.com/text/job/1-6.htm

    So, the “sons of God” are “angels”. The revisionist deceivers like Ken and Defendchrist are simply too embarrassed to admit it, and now ever more so since they decided to open their mouths in their pathetic attempts to criticize the hadith about Satan passing gas. As I said, they barked up the wrong tree!

    Liked by 1 person

    • Hi Faiz
      Here you go again thinking you know all about what we actually know.

      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.

      Notice…Satan came also among them…he is not classed as a son of God.

      And in any case how is Genesis 6:1-8 an embarrassment to me it’s all about context Faiz.

      Question who does God hold responsible for the increase of sin Man or half man half demon?

      Question if a demon can get a woman pregnant the the virgin birth is nothing special.

      Question. If Giants are the result of the demon and woman relationship, how do you account for the Giants already in the land.

      As for critising the Hadith are you so insecure and afraid of the opinions of people who don’t believe what you believe.

      I have not disrespected you on this blog but you seem to always want to make comments which is okay as long as you can take it in return.

      Like

  13. Defendchrist said:

    “Okay…show me where Gabriel is the Holy Spirit?”

    The Quran refer to Gabriel (as) as the holy spirit:

    “Say: The Holy Spirit brought it down from your Lord with the truth, to strengthen those who believe, and as a guidance and good tidings to the Muslims” (Surah An-Nahl, 102).

    Gabriel is the one who brought the Quran down to the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). Thus, he is the holy spirit referred to in the Quran.

    “According to the Koran who made Mary pregnant with Jesus?”

    The Quran states:

    “And Mary the daughter of ‘Imran, who guarded her chastity; and We breathed into (her body) of Our spirit; and she testified to the truth of the words of her Lord and of His Revelations, and was one of the devout (servants)” (Surah At-Tahrim, 12).

    Jesus was conceived by the command of Allah (swt). He merely willed for him to be created, and he was:

    “The similitude of Jesus before Allah is as that of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him: “Be”. And he was” (Surah Al-Imran, 3:59).

    Like

  14. Defendchrist said:

    “Here you go again thinking you know all about what we actually know.

    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.

    Notice…Satan came also among them…he is not classed as a son of God.

    And in any case how is Genesis 6:1-8 an embarrassment to me it’s all about context Faiz.

    Question who does God hold responsible for the increase of sin Man or half man half demon?

    Question if a demon can get a woman pregnant the the virgin birth is nothing special.

    Question. If Giants are the result of the demon and woman relationship, how do you account for the Giants already in the land.

    As for critising the Hadith are you so insecure and afraid of the opinions of people who don’t believe what you believe.

    I have not disrespected you on this blog but you seem to always want to make comments which is okay as long as you can take it in return.”

    Satan was not classed as a “son of God”, but the angels were. Also, what you have to understand is that the author of the book of Job did not share the same theology as later Jews and Christians. Satan was not considered the epitome of evil but rather simply an agent of God. As The Jewish Study Bible states:

    “The Adversary…Heb “ha-satan”, is one of the divine beings. He functions as a kind of prosecuting attorney, and should not be confused with the character of Satan as it developed in the late biblical (see 1 Chron. 21.1) and especially the postbiblical period…” (p. 1506).

    In any case, it is clear that the “sons of god” are the angels in God’s court. Thus, the “sons of god” in Job 1 are the same.

    I also noticed that you ignored Joel 6-7, which clearly refers to the fallen angels going after “strange flesh”:

    “And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their proper dwelling—these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day.

    In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.”

    Notice how the author compared the angels to the people of Sodom and Gomorrah. What else was he referring to?

    Moreover, you are following an opinion that was not followed by the earliest Christian authorities, as the source above showed. We know why the other views arose. It was due to the incessant criticisms and the embarrassment that Christians felt. Thus, they tried to re-interpret Genesis 6.

    You asked some questions that should not be posed to me. I don’t believe in the Bible. Those are questions you need to ask yourself. They are good questions, and if you think about it, you will realize that they put the Bible between a rock and a hard place. The Bible contradicts itself in many places. The reason is that its many books were written by different authors, in different times, and with different beliefs. So, it’s not surprising that all sorts of contradictions and inconsistencies arise within it.

    The “sons of God” in Genesis 6 cannot be human beings because human beings are clearly treated differently. As you said, you need to look at the context:

    “When human beings began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of humans were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose.”

    If they were really human beings, then why not clearly call them “human beings”? Why refer to them separately?

    Like

    • Also, why does Genesis 6 refer to the “sons of God” being attracted to “the daughter of humans”? If they were themselves “humans”, why even say “the daughter of humans”? Who else would they have been attracted to?

      Like

  15. Hey DC, any chance for a response?

    Like

    • Hi Faiz
      Avoiding Jude??? I don’t think so!

      Jude is describing the characters of the false teachers in this letter, and he uses three events to explain himself as to why Christians need to contend for the faith.

      1. The unbelief of Israel.
      2. The rebellion of the Angels
      3. The immorality of Sodom and Gormarrah.

      Jud 1:5 I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not.
      Jud 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.
      Jud 1:7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

      The issue of the Angels starts and finishes with verse 6.

      We now at verse 7 and there is another characteristic being revealed by Jude.
      And the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example…suffering the vengeance of fire.

      The cities round about are Admah and Zeboim…the in like manner refers to them and not angels. Furthermore the text says “fornication” how can you commit fornication with a woman you are married to.

      The issue in verse 6 has nothing to do with the issues in verse 7.

      Genesis 6:1-4.
      You want this to be Angels? Well you need to do some explaining because the whole text is dealing with MAN and how God judges MAN for what MAN has done.

      Verse 3 this is a key scripture…my spirit will not always strive with man.

      Verse 5 God saw the wickedness of MAN.

      Verse 6 God was sorry he made MAN.

      Verse 7 God said he will destroy MAN

      If you want find demonic activity here in this text I can’t find it.

      Lev 10:8 And the LORD spake unto Aaron, saying,
      Lev 10:9 Do not drink wine nor strong drink, thou, nor thy sons with thee, when ye go into the tabernacle of the congregation, lest ye die: it shall be a statute for ever throughout your generations:
      Lev 10:10 And that ye may put difference between holy and unholy, and between unclean and clean;
      Lev 10:11 And that ye may teach the children of Israel all the statutes which the LORD hath spoken unto them by the hand of Moses.

      This plainly obvious that Moses is talking about lifestyle of a person that will serve at the altar.

      2Co 6:14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?
      2Co 6:15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?
      2Co 6:16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
      2Co 6:17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,
      2Co 6:18 And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.

      Paul talking to the church at Corinth that there lifestyle as Christians was important.

      There has always been a call from God to his people not to run with the unrighteous of this world.

      Like

  16. Faiz said : “Satan was not classed as a “son of God”, but the angels were.”

    I think this is a classic example of Faiz’s fuzzy logic.

    As I understand the sons of God in Genesis 6 are those who have kept themselves free from corruption.

    Eventually they mixed with those who were corrupt and intermarried with them.

    That is what the text is saying in my view:

    “That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

    v 3 And the LORD 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.

    The spirit of God was striving to preserve the community of the sons of God who walked obediently in the midst of a world that was becoming more and more corrupt.

    Jesus said plainly that angels have no sexual urge:

    Matthew 22

    29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. 30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

    Like

    • Hi Faiz
      You don’t really have a belief about the bible and Christianity and so you try to make points not understanding the text you are coming against you use people’s opinions and sometimes those opinions are not correct.

      If you were so secure in what you believe you wouldnt be spending your time trying prove s religion wrong.

      You said the following…

      Satan was not classed as a “son of God”, but the angels were. Also, what you have to understand is that the author of the book of Job did not share the same theology as later Jews and Christians. Satan was not considered the epitome of evil but rather simply an agent of God. As The Jewish Study Bible states:

      “The Adversary…Heb “ha-satan”, is one of the divine beings. He functions as a kind of prosecuting attorney, and should not be confused with the character of Satan as it developed in the late biblical (see 1 Chron. 21.1) and especially the postbiblical period…” (p. 1506).

      In any case, it is clear that the “sons of god” are the angels in God’s court. Thus, the “sons of god” in Job 1 are the same.

      Jesus says the devil was a liar from the beginning, why are you trying to play down what he is. He is the deceiver and destroyer of mankind…attorney?? I don’t think so.

      Like

    • Erasmus, what you said makes no sense and ironically exposes your own “fuzzy” logic. Your presuppositions are the problem.

      Why did the author of Genesis have referred to the “daughters of men” if he understood the “sons of God” to simply be those who “kept themselves free from corruption”? Here is what your KJV Bible (I know you place a lot of confidence in that translation):

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

      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.

      3 And the Lord 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.

      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.”

      If the “sons of God” were just human beings, then why did the author keep referring to their lust for the “daughters of men”? Who else would they have been attracted to?

      Your appeal to Matthew 22 is misplaced because it refers to heaven, not earth:

      “Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. 30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.”

      Thus, we can see your “fuzzy” logic in action. Your entire post is a non-sequitur.

      Like

    • Hi Faiz
      Would and does God call demons his sons?

      Like

  17. I’m not sure what the problem is about that hadith according to christians .
    Yes, many scholars of Islam don’t say it’s figurative rather it’s literal’ but what is the problem ?
    Christian believe that their “Almighty god” literally drinks, eats, and farts, then they make this big noise about that hadith?!
    I literally can’t get their problem and complain about that Hadith.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Anyone heard of this guy? Pretty shocking.

      Like

    • Hi Paul
      Full of error and misinformation?? I don’t agree with everything in the video but in one part a guy mentions about stoning for adultery…where does the Koran state stoning for adultery or fornication?

      Like

    • Hi Paul
      I have read the following.

      Stoning for adultery…not in the Koran but…

      Volume 9, Book 83, Number 37:

      Narrated Abu Qilaba:
      I said, “By Allah, Allah’s Apostle never killed anyone except in one of the following three situations: (1) A person who killed somebody unjustly, was killed (in Qisas,) (2) a married person who committed illegal sexual intercourse and (3) a man who fought against Allah and His Apostle and deserted Islam and became an apostate.”

      Ibn Ishaq (970) –
      “The adulterer must be stoned.”  These words were a part of Muhammad’s farewell address to his people on the occasion of his final pilgrimage to Mecca.
       
      Islamic Law –
      “The stone shall not be so big so as to kill the person by one or two strikes, neither shall it be

      On what scriptural basis was Prophet Muhammad ordering people to stoned when it was not in the text of Koran?

      Like

    • Hi Abdullah
      The difference I think is Jesus was living in the physical realm, while Satan on the other hand is living in the spiritual realm.

      It’s not even a part of Gods word and I will say that a lot of things that Muslims believe is not in the Koran.

      Like

    • Muhammad is a prophet of God. His teaching is also source of legislation along with the Qur’an. Both together make up the shariah.

      Liked by 1 person

    • This is another topic by itself! it’s called ( the unseen world).
      As muslims, we believe in creations of God called ( Jinn).
      They are like us in term of that they have to obey God and his messengers to enter paradise otherwise they will be punished in the hell. There’s no problem at all about that hadith to be taken literally for that is the unseen world.

      Like

    • Hi Abdullah
      Who invented that? The Matrix is Hollywood! What proof do you have that they are like us?

      Like

    • Form an Islamic perspective, the evidence is Quran and Sunnah.

      Like

    • So no muslims have anything to say about the fact that Muslim religious practice is not found taught in the quran, and that you follow the works of men who lived hundreds of years after mohammed died?

      Like

    • It seems christians have no clue about hadith science, which is restricted to the nation of islam.
      This science is something we proud of. Christians keep saying that hadiths are very late. But that is becuase of their ignornce in hadith scenice. Hadiths which were written in the the 2nd & the 3rd century had been circulated from the the 1st century. They were written with ( Isnad) i.e the men who transmitted these hadiths !
      For example, the men between imam Malik , who wrote Mutta’, and the the companion of the prophet were just (one man) in some hadiths.
      The period between Imam Malik and the prophet ( pbuh) was just 2 men, one of whom is the companion of the prophet.
      Bukhari, in his some Hadiths , the period between him and the prophet ( pbuh) was just 3 men, one of whom is the companion of the prophet ( pbuh) .
      Morover, we know those men , where they lived, died, and their status.
      FYI, the last one among the companion of the prophet died in 102 H whose name ABU ALTUFAIL AMER IBN WATHELAH.
      ========
      Christians , you are not even close to the minimum standard that we have reagrding the ( the transmission criteria)
      To make it clear. Let’s suppose that we live in the 2nd century( the same period that gospel of john was written at), and we try to collect the sayings of Jesus. For a particular saying of jesus, if we know all the men who transmitted that saying of jesus except one man whom we know his name , yet we don’t know who he is ( his status) . We would have considered that saying as ( WEAK) not authentic. So imagine what we would do for all your books which you have no idea who wrote them? You have no idea about , thier names, their status ( i.e liars or not) , and whether they met the apostles of jesus or not. Since back then , christians have not had objective criteria why the church decided to canonize these books, and Remember, all what have been said is just in case if these books have been preserved as they were written in the first time which is not the case obviously .

      Liked by 1 person

  18. full of error and misinformation

    Like

  19. Faiz,

    You are just picking and choosing to suit your presuppositions.

    Paul’s definition of the sons of God shows that they can also be normal human beings:

    Romans 8 v 14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. 15 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. 16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:

    Romans 8 v 19 For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God. 20For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope, 21 Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.

    you said:

    “If the “sons of God” were just human beings, then why did the author keep referring to their lust for the “daughters of men”? Who else would they have been attracted to?”

    I reply

    The text brings out the contrast between the two groups of mankind on the earth. The community of righteous called the sons of God and the community of the rest of mankind represented by the phrase, daughters of men, not led by the Spirit of God.

    The righteous community begins to marry indiscriminately with the non-righteous community and this accelerates the world in to further corruption.

    The idea that angels change their nature when they cross some invisible border is absurd.

    The nature of all things is immutable.

    Like

    • Erasmus, you are again inserting your own presuppositions into the text. What you need to understand is that the author of Genesis did not have the same theology as Paul. The books of the Bible were written by different people, who often times had different theological perspectives. Case in point: you believe that Satan caused Adam and Eve’s downfall (as do I), but when you read Genesis, there is no mention of Satan, only a talking serpent. Now, you may think that the serpent was actually Satan, but early Jews did not. We can see this in Josephus’ explanation of the fall. No where does he mention Satan in his summary of the fall.

      Your statement that the idea of angels changing their nature is “absurd” is precisely the point. You find the idea embarrassing and absurd, but the fact is that early Jews and Christians did not. They didn’t have the luxury of your presuppositions. You are interpreting the Bible in light of your presuppositions. You find it embarrassing that angels could copulate with humans, so you want to change the meaning of Genesis 6.

      Here is further proof that the “sons of God” were understood to be angels by the authors of the Tanakh. As another Christian source states:

      ““Sons of God” (angels) were present at the laying of the foundation of the earth:

      To what were its foundations fastened? Or who laid its cornerstone, When the morning stars sang together, And all the sons of God shouted for joy? Job 38:6-7” (http://versebyversecommentary.com/jude/jude-6/).

      Can you show me one verse in the Tanakh, outside of Genesis 6, where “sons of God” were anything other than angels? EVERY TIME the phrase “bene elohim” is used in the Tanakh, it refers to angels. Why would Genesis 6 be any different?

      Ironically, notice that in Jude 7, after mentioning the angels, the author makes the following statement:

      Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.”

      Also, just as the author of Jude mentioned the angels and Sodom and Gomorrha together, so did the author of 2 Peter! 2 Peter 2 states:

      “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;

      5 And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;

      6 And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly;

      7 And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked:”

      Why do two NT authors mention the angels in the same context as Sodom and Gomorrha? Look at the text without your presuppositions.

      Like

    • Hi Faiz
      You think you know it all to the point that you can now accuse people of not being able to prove their point.
      I only need one right?

      Hos 1:10 Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered; and it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God.

      Like

  20. Hi Abdullan
    Where in the previous scriptures do we read beings living a parallel reality to ours, as there there seems to be in the bible the understanding that we God, Angels and fallen angels along with the devil.

    Where is did Muhammad get this understanding of such beings called Jinn? What scriptures speak of that.

    Like

  21. DC said:

    “Jesus says the devil was a liar from the beginning, why are you trying to play down what he is. He is the deceiver and destroyer of mankind…attorney?? I don’t think so.”

    See, you have the same problem as Erasmus. You guys think that the authors of the various books of the Bible had the same beliefs and theology! But the fact is that they didn’t!

    Jesus (pbuh) did call Satan a liar, but that’s exactly the point! Some of the authors of the Tanakh clearly did not believe in the devil as you and I believe. They also did not believe in demons. Therefore, to compare their beliefs to later Christian beliefs is absurd. It’s like comparing apples and oranges.

    Just as I asked Erasmus, I ask you as well. Can you find one verse in the Tanakh where “sons of God” were anything other than angels?

    Like

    • Hi Faiz

      Hos 1:10 Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered; and it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God.

      No it’s not added or has scribal changes so you shot yourself in the foot.

      At least I have the humility to say I have no reputation or looking for one, I hope you are humble enough to say you are wrong.

      And no me and Erasmus do not have the problem you do! Of course the theology is different it’s not the same God and Muhammad comes along and wants to be cut and pasted into the bible.

      Liked by 1 person

  22. LOL DC! You appealed to Hosea 1:10 in response to my challenge but you just exposed your own ignorance and shabby research! I asked where in the Tanakh does it mention “sons of God”, which in the Hebrew is “bene ha-elohim”. You quoted Hosea 1:10 which states:

    “Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered; and it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God (bene el-hay)“.

    And as a Christian source states:

    “The term translated “the Sons of God” is, in the Hebrew, B’nai HaElohim, “Sons of Elohim,” which is a term consistently used in the Old Testament for angels,4 and it is never used of believers in the Old Testament” (http://www.khouse.org/articles/1997/110/).

    Try again, DC! Where in the Tanakh is the phrase “bene ha-elohim” used in reference to human beings?
    You know the answer. Just admit it. You don’t want your cheerleader madman celebrating prematurely again!! LOL!!

    Here is some more proof for the sons of God being angels. In the other other thread, you appealed to the church fathers in a desperate attempt to legitimize the trinity idea. Well, let’s see what they said about Genesis 6, shall we? I have a feeling you will soon disown these very same church fathers!

    St. Justin Martyr (c. 100 – 165): God, when He had made the whole world, and subjected things earthly to man, and arranged the heavenly elements for the increase of fruits and rotation of the seasons, and appointed this divine law – for these things also He evidently made for man – committed the care of men and of all things under heaven to angels whom He appointed over them. But the angels transgressed this appointment, and were captivated by love of women, and begat children who are those that are called demons; and besides, they afterwards subdued the human race to themselves, partly by magical writings, and partly by fears and punishments they occasioned, and partly by teaching them to offer sacrifices, and incense, and libations, of which things they stood in need after they enslaved by lustful passions; and among men they sowed murders, wars, adulteries, intemperate needs, and all wickedness. . . . (Second Apology, “How the Angels Transgressed,” #5)

    Tatian the Assyrian (ca. 120 – 180 AD): “[God]… committed the care of men and of all things under heaven to angels whom He appointed over them. But the angels transgressed this appointment, and were captivated by the love of women, and begat children who are those who are called demons; and besides, they afterwards subdued the human race to themselves, partly by magical writings, and partly by fears and the punishments they occasioned, and partly by teaching them to offer sacrifices, and incense, and libations, of which things they stood in need after they were enslaved by lustful passions; and among men they sowed murders, wars, adulteries, intemperate deeds, and all wickedness.” [2nd Apology, #5].

    St. Irenaeus of Lyons (d. 202): And for a very long while wickedness extended and spread, and reached and laid hold upon the whole race of mankind, until a very small seed of righteousness remained among them and illicit unions took place upon the earth, since angels were united with the daughters of the race of mankind; and they bore to them sons who for their exceeding greatness were called giants. And the angels brought as presents to their wives teachings of wickedness,1 in that they brought them the virtues of roots and herbs, dyeing in colors and cosmetics, the discovery of rare substances, love-potions, aversions, amours, concupiscence, constraints of love, spells of bewitchment, and all sorcery and idolatry hateful to God; by the entry of which things into the world evil extended and spread, while righteousness was diminished and enfeebled. [Proof of the Apostolic Preaching, #18].

    Tertullian (ca. 160 – 225 AD): For they, withal, who instituted them are assigned, under condemnation, to the penalty of death, — those angels, to wit, who rushed from heaven on the daughters of men; so that this ignominy also attaches to woman…Was it that women, without material causes of splendour, and without ingenious contrivances of grace, could not please men, who, while still unadorned, and uncouth and — so to say — crude and rude, had moved (the mind of) angels? or was it that the lovers would appear sordid and — through gratuitous use — contumelious, if they had conferred no (compensating) gift on the women who had been enticed into connubial connection with them?… Women who possessed angels (as husbands) could desire nothing more; they had, forsooth, made a grand match! [On the Apparel of Women, Chapter 2, “The Origin of Female Ornamentation, Traced Back to the Angels who had Fallen”].

    So, there you go. The church fathers, at least the “earlier” ones, believed that the “sons of God” were angels. Sorry to disappoint you, but your Bible says that angels copulated with human women. You may be embarrassed by it, but it doesn’t change anything.

    Liked by 1 person

  23. Both expressions show that men or angels are the sons of God in the OT.

    Do your homework next time.

    The church fathers are not inspired.

    Like

    • Lol, oh please. You obviously haven’t done your homework which is why you are struggling to provide any concrete answers. I’m not interested in your personal opinions and presuppositions. It’s obvious that you will do anything to avoid the traditional interpretation because it is so embarrassing.

      I ask again. Where in the Tanakh is the phrase “bene ha-elohim” used in a clear reference to humans?

      And why does Genesis 6 differentiate between the “sons of God” and human women if they were really just men?

      Why do the authors of Jude and 2 Peter refer to angela in the same context as Sodom and Gamorrha?

      Do your homework. No one cares about your personal opinions.

      Like

    • Hi Faiz
      Correct me if I’m wrong but you wanted a single verse that spoke of Sons of God as humans, the verse in Hosea 1:10’says Sons of the living God (EL)

      Is EL a God different from Elohim or are we talking about the same God?

      Like I said before Jude is using events to describe the characters of false teachers.

      In 2nd Peter he is telling us the these false teachers are not going to escape judgement.

      Just like the angels who revelled…The people of Noah’s day…the People of Sodom. All of them were judged.

      You said…
      So, there you go. The church fathers, at least the “earlier” ones, believed that the “sons of God” were angels. Sorry to disappoint you, but your Bible says that angels copulated with human women. You may be embarrassed by it, but it doesn’t change anything.

      These are the same people who you say are forging scriptures etc now you want to use them to prove your case.

      So these fallen angels got married right?

      Who is God holding responsible?

      Like

    • DC, you naivete is showing. Surely even you realize that we must look at the original text, and not necessarily the translation? Why is it that “bene ha-elohim” is used consistently for angels? Even Christian sources agree with me, but you think you know better. Really?

      Look at it this way. If you think the phrases “bene ha-elohim” and “bene el-hayy” are interchangeable and mean the same thing, then can you show me a verse from the Tanakh where angels are referred to as “bene el-hay”? You already failed one challenge, so here is another one for you.

      Regarding the church fathers, the point is that your double standards are exposed. You were the one who said that you don’t rely on scholars to learn the Bible, right? So, why do you appeal to them when it suits your purpose and ignore them when they don’t? Why is it that so many of the church fathers (in fact, the “earliest” ones) interpreted Genesis 6 so differently than you?

      Also, your appeal to the church fathers for proving the trinity cannot be compared to my appeal to them for proving that the sons of God were angels. Genesis is much older than your New Testament, and thus the interpretations are older as well (in contrast, the church fathers lived centuries after Jesus). Those verses were already well known even before Christianity. In the Dead Sea Scrolls, scholars found the “Book of Giants”, which also mentions angels copulating with human women. In fact, the fragments of the “Book of Giants” add that the angels even copulated with animals (!):

      “1Q23 Frag. 1 + 6 [ . . . two hundred] 2donkeys, two hundred asses, two hundred . . . rams of the] 3flock, two hundred goats, two hundred [ . . . beast of the] 4field from every animal, from every [bird . . . ] 5[ . . . ] for miscegenation [ . . . ]” http://www.gnosis.org/library/dss/dss_book_of_giants.htm

      I know it’s embarrassing, but the evidence once against you. Your Bible says that angels had sex with human women. Get over it.

      The authors of Jude and 2 Peter referred to the angels in the same context as Sodom and Gamorrha. A bit too coincidental, don’t you think? Why did they both refer to them together? If it was simply about rebelling against God, then surely they could have mentioned other acts of rebellion, not simply sexual rebellion, right?

      In the end, it’s up to you whether you choose to remain bound by your presuppositions or whether you want to look at the available evidence. The truth will set you free, but if you feel more comfortable living in a fantasy world, no one can stop you. As the saying goes:

      “You can’t teach old dog new tricks.”

      I find this statement to be very true when it comes to Christian apologists.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Hey Faiz
      I already told you that Jude was dealing with false teachers characters which were…

      Rebellion…unbelief…sexual immorality.

      In 2nd Peter he was dealing with the judgement of the false teachers.

      For example…The fallen angels…the people in Noah’s day…and sodom. Judgement came to all of them the false teachers will not escape judgement either.

      Where does the bible say fallen angels had sex with human women? Form what I can see in the text these men got married…sodom’s sin is homosexual fornication

      Why did God destroy man off the earth what do you think the reason?

      Like

  24. “Why did they both refer to them together? If it was simply about rebelling against God, then surely they could have mentioned other acts of rebellion, not simply sexual rebellion, right? ”

    They didn’t mention just sexual rebellion.

    Like

  25. ok, you asked for it.

    5And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;

    5I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not.

    Where’s the sexual sin here?

    Like

    • Oh Lord, are you really that naive? Notice that the author mentioned Noah and Lot as being saved. Noah was saved during the flood, while Lot was saved during the destruction of Sodom. Noah is mentioned after the angels, and Lot is mentioned after Sodom and Gamorrha. Surely, you can put two and two together?

      Like

  26. Sorry, I can’t follow your train of thought. Perhaps you can explain in more detail how you construct your argument.

    Like

    • It’s simple. The angels and the wicked people before the flood are mentioned, then Noah. Then the author mentioned Sodom and Gamorrha, then Lot. Do you see the comparison?

      Like

  27. There is continuity back to the creation which would be broken if the angels had intermarried with man:

    ” 7And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, ”

    In other words there is no change in the constitution of man’s being.

    He is still just the same as God created him on the sixth day.

    Like

    • Who said anything about a “change in the constitution of man’s being”? The “daughters of men” were still humans and not all human women married angels and then had hybrid children. In fact, Genesis 6 clearly states the the “Nephilim” (the Giants) were in the earth in those days and “ALSO AFTERWARD”. How did they continue to exist “afterward”? The text tells us the reason:

      “The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterwardwhen the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.”

      If the “sons of God” were simply other human beings, then how did they have “Nephilim” children with the “daughters of men”?

      Like

  28. DC< you keep ignoring the overwhelming evidence against you. Genesis 6 very clearly states that angels (sons of God) had sex with humans. The early Jews believed that, and so did your church fathers. I'm afraid you have no where to run.

    “The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.”

    These were the "angels" who rebelled against God, because they left their heavenly habitation and chose to settle on earth and have unnatural unions with humans (and according to the Dead Sea Scrolls, with animals as well). Their rebellion was settling on earth and mating with humans, in violation of the order God had set-up.

    Why don't you answer me challenge? I know you already failed one, but there is another. Can you show me where the phrase "bene el-hay" is used to refer to angels? Just one example will suffice.

    Like

    • Hi Faiz
      You use early Jews and church fathers when it suits you…they also believed in the two powers in heaven as well!

      Genesis 6:1-4.

      One question I need to ask is where in the bible does God call fallen angels…his sons?

      Gen 6:1  And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
      Gen 6:2  That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they werefair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

      Where did you read that what is happening in this text is unnatural?

      They got married where is the sexual sin here?

      …there were Giants in the land in those days, and also afterwards….after what? Obviously the marriage unions…these unions have no bearing on the Giants.

      If you want to believe demons have sperm and humans bodies to be able marry women then that’s down to you.

      The bible does not give the indication of any immorality taking only that place, but it does say wickedness and evil thoughts continually.

      You are putting that meaning on the text by what certain scholars have said, and that’s what you want to believe.

      I think I will rather go by what the text says than put my own meaning on it. Just the natural flow of the text is fine for me.

      It’s not about shame for me if it happened or not, it is more sad for the human race who have been attacked and ruined by the enemy.

      You still have to get around this verse…

      Gen 6:7  And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

      …I WILL DESTROY MAN WHOM I HAVE CREATED.

      I don’t think these verses have anything to do with fallen angels and women. This is a man in sin issue and its Gods decision to destroy all.

      Can you explain how Noah and his family are not infected by this weird mixture of the demonic and human relationship.

      Remember Faiz you are defending this belief!

      If you think I’m running away from answering you then the answer that is no!

      You are really in the twilight zone here

      Like

  29. “It’s simple. The angels and the wicked people before the flood are mentioned, then Noah. Then the author mentioned Sodom and Gamorrha, then Lot. Do you see the comparison?”

    I see the similarity that a group of people were disobedient and that they were punished.

    What is the other comparison?

    Like

    • Right, because you don’t want to see the more obvious similarity of sexual disobedience. That would be inconvenient to you.

      Do you really think the “wicked people” before the flood were not “disobedient” in sexual ways? The “daughters of men” sleeping with the “sons of God”?! That’s pretty “disobedient”, wouldn’t you say?

      Like

  30. “If the “sons of God” were simply other human beings, then how did they have “Nephilim” children with the “daughters of men”?”

    If the nephilim were created before and after then there was no invasion of angels.

    Like

    • You didn’t answer my question. How did the “sons of God” have “Nephilim” children? The Bible says it very clearly:

      “The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.

      It even states that the children that the “sons of God” had were “the heroes of old”. The KJV is even more explicit. It refers to them as “mighty”. Clearly, these children were stronger than the average man. How could that be if there wasn’t something unusual about the “sons of God”?

      By the way, who were these “heroes of old” that the Bible is referring to?

      Like

  31. The angels had to get a body from somewhere to be able to copulate with human beings. This would only be possible if it was created by God for them. In that case how can God condemn the angels for doing something that was only possible through his creative act?

    Another problem is that angels have no emotions or feelings. They are not fully human. How can they participate in human life in this condition?

    Like

    • Hi Madmanna
      Faiz has entered the twilight Zone in trying to prove the bible has issues.

      Like

    • true, the Bible has no issues at all, no contradictions, no errors, no discrepancies.

      It is completely perfect.

      Like

    • LOL, more Christian presuppositions! You guys really make me laugh! I’ll take this Christian comedy of errors over a comedy club any day!

      So, obviously you know a lot of angels personally, right madman? LOL!!

      The angels had left their domain and entered the domain of men. That in itself was an act of disobedience. Once they had entered the domain of men, they sinner further by copulating with human women. Don’t ask me the intricacies of how that happened! That’s your problem, not mine. I don’t believe Genesis 6 is “inspired scripture”!

      Oh and as for your claim that angels have “no emotions or feelings”, it seems you disagree with the author of Job!

      “On what were its footings set,
      or who laid its cornerstone—
      7
      while the morning stars sang together
      and all the angels[a] shouted for joy?” (Job 38:7).

      Are you willfully deceitful or just willfully ignorant of your own Bible? 😉

      Like

    • LOL, brother Paul! Obviously DC does not realize the irony of his statement. The guy is living in his own fantasy world with a Bible that is somehow free of any errors.

      I can just picture a new episode of the Twilight Zone:

      “Submitted for your approval. A man who calls himself DefendChrist believes wholeheartedly in the inerrancy of the Bible. He lives his life assured of the reality of his presuppositions. Little does he realize that he has entered into…the Twilight Zone”…(Twilight Zone theme)

      Like

  32. The other problem is that angels are spirits but you cannot copulate without a body.

    The only way they could get this body is if God created it for them.

    In that case how could they be condemned and judged by God if he made it possible in the first place?

    Another problem is that angels have no feelings or emotions so how could they participate in human life in this state?

    Of course if you are coming from a religion that has it’s roots in paganism where everything is transformable then this poses no problem.

    Like

  33. “Erasmus, you are again inserting your own presuppositions into the text. What you need to understand is that the author of Genesis did not have the same theology as Paul.”

    But the writer of Luke had the same anthropology of man as Paul:

    Luke 3 v 38: Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

    Adam is the first son of God so all humans after him are potentially sons of God depending on whether they are chosen by God to walk with him.

    So those human beings in Genesis 6 can also rightfully be called the sons of God, just as the angels are, depending on whether or not they are walking with God.

    Thus it is not correct to say that the term sons of God can only be applied to the angels in the OT.

    Like

    • Except that every where else in the Tanakh, ONLY angels are referred to as “sons of God”. The assumptions of later Christians does not change this fact.

      And again, if the “sons of God” were in fact just men, then why does the author repeatedly refer to the “daughters of men”? Who else would the “sons of God” be attracted to, if they were men?

      Also, if they were just men, then how did they have children who were comparable to the Nephilim?

      Like

  34. LOL DC, you still don’t realize that Judaism was not a monolith! There were many different competing beliefs. There were binitarians (not trinitarians), there were unitarians, there were people who believed in an afterlife and those that didn’t. Get it? So you are just moving the goal post and trying to distract from your own failures by appealing to the differing beliefs of the early Jews.

    Let me give you another example. Early Jews, at least some of them, actually believed that God was an old man with grey hair! Submitted for your approval ( 😉 ):

    In his “vision”, Daniel saw the “Ancient of Days” and provided a vivid description of this being (who was obviously “God”), including clothing that “was white as snow”, and hair that “was white as wool”. But as historians have recognized, this description of a white-haired God seems to be influenced by pagan mythology. According to Hammer:

    “[t]he imagery probably comes from Canaanite mythology, in which El was regarded as an aged deity with grey hair.” (http://quranandbible.blogspot.com/2016/09/the-book-of-daniel.html).

    The Jews were Canaanites, so it’s not surprising that some of them were influenced by the local mythology. Also, notice that “El” was known to the Canaanites as well.

    Still not answering my challenge I see? Yes, you are running away and trying desperately to distract from your failures. I take it you cannot answer my challenge? I take it you realize that “bene ha-elohim” is not interchangeable with “bene el-hay” but are too embarrassed to admit it?

    LOL, and I am not “defending” the idea that angels can copulate with humans. I don’t believe in the Bible dude, but you do! I am showing that your Bible clearly refers to angel-human sex. Sorry if that bothers you (it should), but there it is. Now you two choices: you can either admit that the Bible makes this absurd claim and come out into the real world OR you can continue to close your eyes and ears and pretend that you are living in the real world (which is actually the Twilight Zone). Cue the “Twilight Zone” theme.

    Like

    • Hey Faiz
      If you are a Muslim and you don’t believe in the bible then your prophet is a false prophet.

      And furthermore why are you battling for a certain belief ( angels having sex with women) when you don’t believe in the bible.

      You sound like a confused person battling for an opinion against another opinion when you don’t believe in either opinion surely you are confused.

      You said…
      LOL, and I am not “defending” the idea that angels can copulate with humans. I don’t believe in the Bible dude, but you do! I am showing that your Bible clearly refers to angel-human sex

      You have spent the last couple of days defending that opinion otherwise why post your comments…or are you just confused.

      Like

  35. “Except that every where else in the Tanakh, ONLY angels are referred to as “sons of God”. The assumptions of later Christians does not change this fact. ”

    That’s simply because until the church is formed there is no community which can be referred to collectively as the sons of God. Not because the term can only be applied to angels. The occurrence of the word in the Tanakh is dependent upon redemptive history not the condition that you have imposed.

    Adam was the first son of God and there was a community of believers before the flood to which this term could apply. After the flood there was no community of the sons of God until the church was formed. This explains why the term does not occur in the tanakh after this. Sorry to disappoint you.

    Like

    • Adam was never referred to as a “son of God” in the Tanakh. That’s what you are not getting. The phrase “bene ha-elohim” is used a few times in the Tanakh and it ALWAYS refers to angels. It is illogical to claim that Genesis 6 would be somehow different.

      Like

    • More presuppositions. Is that all you have?

      Your entire is a circular argument. Not very convincing. Sorry to disappoint you.

      Like

  36. “And again, if the “sons of God” were in fact just men, then why does the author repeatedly refer to the “daughters of men”? Who else would the “sons of God” be attracted to, if they were men?

    Also, if they were just men, then how did they have children who were comparable to the Nephilim?”

    I reply:

    The phrase “daughters of men” simply means that the sons of God community of believers married indiscriminately without regard to belief.

    The Nephilim were already on the earth before this happened. The giants did not occur as a result of this event. There was no change in that respect so your question is a non argument.

    ” 4There 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.”

    Like

    • You must be joking. If the “sons of God” were “righteous” men, then why would they “indiscriminately” marry those women? What if they had “discriminately” chosen the women? How would the women have been described? Would it still not be as “daughters of men”?

      It is more likely that the “sons of God” were being differentiated from the “daughters of men” precisely because they were not men!

      I know the Nephilim were there before. But the text says that they were there afterwards as well WHEN the “sons of God” had children with the “daughters of men”. And those children are described as being “mighty”. Why?

      Like

  37. “while the morning stars sang together
    and all the angels[a] shouted for joy?” (Job 38:7).

    Are you willfully deceitful or just willfully ignorant of your own Bible?”

    Good point. Well seen.

    Like

  38. “Do you really think the “wicked people” before the flood were not “disobedient” in sexual ways? The “daughters of men” sleeping with the “sons of God”?! That’s pretty “disobedient”, wouldn’t you say?”

    I reply:

    It is disobedient but still within the bounds of normal sexual behaviour which is not against the nature of man as God created him.

    The reason it is disobedient is not because men are sleeping with aliens as it were or some other sexual aberration.

    In connection with the flood the sin that is brought out in the text is violence. Of course there could have been a prevalence of other sexual sins, probably adultery. We cannot say that there was abnormal sexual behaviour without some evidence to back this up.

    Like

    • What??!! Are you joking?! It was “normal sexual behavior”? Um no. “Normal” sexual behavior, according to the Bible, is sex within the bounds of marriage between a man and a woman. Thus, for the “daughters of men” to sleep with the “sons of God”, even within the bounds of marriage, was not “normal”. It was “unnatural”.

      Like

    • Um no. Genesis 6 first mentions the “wickedness” of mankind directly AFTER mentioning the sins of the “sons of God” and the “daughters of men”.

      “The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.

      5 The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time. 6 The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled. 7 So the Lord said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them.” 8 But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord.”

      Thus, the disobedience should be understood in the context of the union of the “sons of God” and the “daughters of men”.

      Like

  39. “Adam was never referred to as a “son of God” in the Tanakh. That’s what you are not getting. The phrase “bene ha-elohim” is used a few times in the Tanakh and it ALWAYS refers to angels. It is illogical to claim that Genesis 6 would be somehow different.”

    The tanakh is not the complete revelation of God. Men are also sons of God as Mark and Paul clearly state. This disproves Islam by itself alone.

    Like

    • LOL, it was and still is to Jews. Your Christian presuppositions are not very convincing! The fact that this is the best you can do disproves Christianity by itself alone.

      Like

  40. “is used a few times in the Tanakh and it ALWAYS refers to angels”

    Just cos Faiz says so don’t make it so.

    Like

    • LOL, that’s where you’re wrong! I’m not the only one who says so. Here is some reading material, from Jewish and Christian sources that agree with me:

      http://judaicseminar.org/bible/beresheet5.pdf
      http://www.letusreason.org/Doct11.htm
      http://www.khouse.org/articles/1997/110/

      Sorry if it pops your bubble or makes you uncomfortable, but the fact is that “bene ha elohim” is always used in the Tanakh for angels.

      Like

    • LOL, that’s where you’re wrong! It’s not just me who says this. Here is a reading list for your, from both Jewish and Christian sources:

      http://www.khouse.org/articles/1997/110/
      http://www.letusreason.org/Doct11.htm
      http://judaicseminar.org/bible/beresheet5.pdf

      Sorry if this burst your bubble or makes you uncomfortable, but your Bible talks about angels and humans copulating. I have presented scholarly evidence. What have you presented? Oh right, your personal opinions, circular arguments and presuppositions.

      Like

    • Hi Faiz
      If you think the scholars and the website links you posted are correct then you must also believe what the book of Enoch says…the children born to this demonic and human relationship are said to be 300 cubits tall which by today’s measurement in feet = 450 feet tall.

      And if we look at Noah’s ark that was built in the same time period the bible says…

      Gen 6:13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.
      Gen 6:14 Make thee an ark of gopher wood; rooms shalt thou make in the ark, and shalt pitch it within and without with pitch.
      Gen 6:15 And this is the fashion which thou shalt make it of: The length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits.

      They were as tall as the ark was in length!

      This reminds me of a Hadith where Adam is said to be 90feet tall if we convert the cubits to feet, it seems like Muhammad was in on the act.

      So Faiz lets go back to the Enoch not one of the demonic / human offspring could get in the ark and to be honest a group of them could in fact destroy the ark.

      And if Noah’s sons and wives are repopulating the earth with righteous seed where did the Giants come from in Numbers 13:33

      Like

  41. “What??!! Are you joking?! It was “normal sexual behavior”? Um no. “Normal” sexual behavior, according to the Bible, is sex within the bounds of marriage between a man and a woman. ”

    It’s sex between man and woman so in that sense normal.

    Like

  42. Hosea 1 v 10 says clearly that men are also sons of God. This shows that the sons of God in Genesis 6 could have been men. Syntax does not decide the issue alone as you wish to impose arbitrarily upon the discussion. The concept is not just confined to the NT.

    Like

    • LOL, repeating the same debunked argument over and over is not very convincing. Your personal opinions don’t mean anything. I have supported my claims with evidence from scholarly sources, whereas all you can muster are your personal opinions. Hmmm, talk about arbitrary…

      Just because Erasmus says so does not make it so.

      Hosea 1:10 uses the phrase “bene el-hay”. Genesis 6 uses the phrase “bene ha-elohim”. Not the same.

      Like

  43. ““is used a few times in the Tanakh and it ALWAYS refers to angels”

    A good example of a circular argument methinks.

    Like

    • LOL, methinks Erasmus is getting desperate. The only circular arguments are the one coming from you, as we have seen above.

      It’s very easy to disprove me. All you have to do is bring an example of the use of the phrase “bene ha-elohim” for humans from the Tanakh outside of Genesis 6.

      Like

  44. DC said:

    “Hey Faiz
    If you are a Muslim and you don’t believe in the bible then your prophet is a false prophet.

    And furthermore why are you battling for a certain belief ( angels having sex with women) when you don’t believe in the bible.

    You sound like a confused person battling for an opinion against another opinion when you don’t believe in either opinion surely you are confused.

    You said…
    LOL, and I am not “defending” the idea that angels can copulate with humans. I don’t believe in the Bible dude, but you do! I am showing that your Bible clearly refers to angel-human sex

    You have spent the last couple of days defending that opinion otherwise why post your comments…or are you just confused.”

    LOL, you’re just getting silly now dude!

    Any reasonable person would conclude that that the Bible is false. Therefore, the blessed Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) told the truth. If you’re too blind to see it, that’s your problem.

    I have referred to the angel-human copulation story to prove three things:

    1. The silliness of Christian apologists for attacking the hadith about Satan farting.
    2. The absurdity of the Bible in claiming that angels copulated with humans.
    3. The fact that Christians are so embarrassed about the stories in their Bible that they will go to great lengths to change what it actually says.

    And I haven’t been disappointed! Despite the collective effort of so many apologists, none of you have been able to provide any substantive rebuttal.

    Like

    • Hi Faiz
      You are confused because you are backing an event you say happened in a book that you say is false, if the book is false where and how did you come to the conclusion that this story is true.

      If a book is false I wouldn’t believe anything in it, which is why I said you are confused and so confused that you posting all these website links to “prove” your point which means absolutely nothing if the book is false…you are really confused.

      Who is embarrassed? I don’t sense that from anyone debating with you, that in your mind we know why we believe what we believe and you don’t.

      Is “El” a different God from “Elohim” or in other words is the God in Job 1:6 different from the God in Hosea 1:10?

      This is not a lot different from me saying to you quote from the Koran where Jesus says himself…”I am the Messiah”

      What stories are you talking about in the bible we are embarrassed about?

      Like

  45. Another reason which supports the view that ordinary men are in view here is that there is no coherent reason for the sudden appearance of the lust of the angels for men if we go with the angels view.

    On the other hand there is a reasonable and natural explanation if we assume that the text is speaking about men exclusively.

    “1And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, 2That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.”

    You said: “It’s very easy to disprove me. All you have to do is bring an example of the use of the phrase “bene ha-elohim” for humans from the Tanakh outside of Genesis 6.”

    I reply:

    I don’t have to bring evidence based on your faulty premise.

    Redemptive history explains why the term is not found again in the OT.

    Like

    • LOL, so Erasmus decides that he does not need to bring evidence for his own faulty claims. Ooookay, whatever you say!

      Your premise is faulty from the get-go because there is no coherent reason for the “sons of God” (if they were just men) to all of a sudden become attracted to women only after the human population began to grow.

      As it stands, the weight of the evidence (the textual and exegetical evidence) supports the angel view. Just because you guys are uncomfortable with it does not change anything. Your Bible claims that angels copulated with humans. Sorry!

      Like

  46. The prophecy itself in Hosea 1 tells us why the term is not found again after Gen 6 in the OT.

    It is because it is something that will come to fulfillment in the future:

    Hosea 1 v 10 Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered; and it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God.

    This is something that was destined to be fulfilled under the New Covenant, not the old.

    Like

    • “The prophecy itself in Hosea 1 tells us why the term is not found again after Gen 6 in the OT.”

      should be:

      “The prophecy itself in Hosea 1 tells us why the term is not found again after Gen 6 in the OT to identify a group of men living upon the earth at that time, i.e. before the canon of the OT is closed.” or words to that effect.

      and:

      “Redemptive history explains why the term is not found again in the OT.”

      should be:

      “Redemptive history explains why the term is not found again in the OT to identify a group of men living upon the earth at that time” or words to that effect.

      Why is the demographic spread of men upon the earth given as the reason why the sons of God found the daughters of men to be fair if the truth is that the real cause behind this is that the angels left their first estate?

      Like

    • LOL, so then why doesn’t it use the term, even if it is a prophecy? What difference does it make that it will happen in the future? Couldn’t the Bible “prophesy” that they will be called “bene ha-elohim”? Faulty Christian logic strikes again…

      Like

  47. DC said:

    “Hi Faiz
    If you think the scholars and the website links you posted are correct then you must also believe what the book of Enoch says…the children born to this demonic and human relationship are said to be 300 cubits tall which by today’s measurement in feet = 450 feet tall.

    And if we look at Noah’s ark that was built in the same time period the bible says…

    Gen 6:13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.
    Gen 6:14 Make thee an ark of gopher wood; rooms shalt thou make in the ark, and shalt pitch it within and without with pitch.
    Gen 6:15 And this is the fashion which thou shalt make it of: The length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits.

    They were as tall as the ark was in length!

    This reminds me of a Hadith where Adam is said to be 90feet tall if we convert the cubits to feet, it seems like Muhammad was in on the act.

    So Faiz lets go back to the Enoch not one of the demonic / human offspring could get in the ark and to be honest a group of them could in fact destroy the ark.

    And if Noah’s sons and wives are repopulating the earth with righteous seed where did the Giants come from in Numbers 13:33”

    Oh boy, you just are not getting it, are you?

    I don’t believe any of this nonsense! Get that through your head. I don’t believe in Genesis or Enoch. But you do, and since I have proven that the text describes angel-human sex, it is YOU who must believe this nonsense, no me!

    By the way, by referring to the Book of Enoch, you once again shoot yourself in the foot. It is actually further proof that the author of Jude was talking about angels having sex with humans, because we know that the author of Jude used the Book of Enoch as one of his sources. In fact, he even directly quotes from it! Jude 1:14-15 states:

    “Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about them: “See, the Lord is coming with thousands upon thousands of his holy ones to judge everyone, and to convict all of them of all the ungodly acts they have committed in their ungodliness, and of all the defiant words ungodly sinners have spoken against him.””

    Scholars have recognized that this passage is taken from 1 Enoch 1:9!

    And what does the Book of Enoch say about Genesis 6? Exactly what I have been saying all along!

    “And it came to pass when the children of men had multiplied that in those days were born unto 2 them beautiful and comely daughters. And the angels, the children of the heaven, saw and lusted after them, and said to one another: ‘Come, let us choose us wives from among the children of men 3 and beget us children.’ And Semjaza, who was their leader, said unto them: ‘I fear ye will not 4 indeed agree to do this deed, and I alone shall have to pay the penalty of a great sin.’ And they all answered him and said: ‘Let us all swear an oath, and all bind ourselves by mutual imprecations 5 not to abandon this plan but to do this thing.’ Then sware they all together and bound themselves 6 by mutual imprecations upon it. And they were in all two hundred; who descended in the days of Jared on the summit of Mount Hermon, and they called it Mount Hermon, because they had sworn 7 and bound themselves by mutual imprecations upon it. And these are the names of their leaders: Samlazaz, their leader, Araklba, Rameel, Kokablel, Tamlel, Ramlel, Danel, Ezeqeel, Baraqijal, 8 Asael, Armaros, Batarel, Ananel, Zaq1el, Samsapeel, Satarel, Turel, Jomjael, Sariel. These are their chiefs of tens” (Chapter 6).

    So here is even MORE proof that Genesis 6 was referring to angel-human sex. Give it up DC. You’re fighting a losing battle. The weight of the evidence is completely against you. Save yourself the time and just admit that you are wrong.

    Oh and by the way, the hadith about Adam being tall referred to his height in Paradise, not on earth, so nice try with the desperate attempt at diverting attention from the absurdities in your Bible! 😉

    Like

    • Hi Faiz

      Neither do you understand if the book is false then it is not reality why are trying to prove something happened when you don’t believe it happened?

      You sound like an atheist trying to prove there is no God.

      Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah’s Apostle said, “The first group of people who will enter Paradise, will be glittering like the full moon and those who will follow them, will glitter like the most brilliant star in the sky… All of them will look alike and will resemble their father Adam (in statute), sixty cubits tall.” (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 55, Number 544)

      Does that mean when you get to heaven you will be 90 feet tall as well?

      How was Adams wife? What about their children the reason I ask is because of another narration.

      Narrated Abu Huraira:The Prophet said, “Allah created Adam, making him 60 cubits tall. …. People have been decreasing in stature since Adam’s creation. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 55, Number 543)

      So how tall were their kids (50…60..70 feet) on the earth

      Don’t worry I’m not diverting attention away from the issue because this is one of the issues mentioned with demon / human offspring they were meant to be giants remember.

      The Koran doesn’t say the OT is false then why are you calling it false?

      Like

  48. DC said:

    “Hi Faiz
    You are confused because you are backing an event you say happened in a book that you say is false, if the book is false where and how did you come to the conclusion that this story is true.

    If a book is false I wouldn’t believe anything in it, which is why I said you are confused and so confused that you posting all these website links to “prove” your point which means absolutely nothing if the book is false…you are really confused.

    Who is embarrassed? I don’t sense that from anyone debating with you, that in your mind we know why we believe what we believe and you don’t.

    Is “El” a different God from “Elohim” or in other words is the God in Job 1:6 different from the God in Hosea 1:10?

    This is not a lot different from me saying to you quote from the Koran where Jesus says himself…”I am the Messiah”

    What stories are you talking about in the bible we are embarrassed about?”

    LOL dude, you are completely delusional. I never said that the event actually happened! I am saying that your Bible claims that such an event happened! Get the difference?

    I am posting scholarly evidence to show that early Jews and Christians believed that Genesis 6 was describing how angels lusted after human women. You have no intelligent response to any of this evidence except your own personal opinions and straw man arguments.

    It is obvious that you guys are embarrassed by the idea of angels having sex with humans. Why else are you trying so hard to “prove” that the “sons of God” were just men, even though all evidence points to them being angels? So yeah, I sense a great deal of embarrassment. You don’t want it to be true, because you know how absurd it is.

    Regarding “El” and “Elohim”, I already showed that the two phrases “bene ha-elohim” and “bene el-hay” were not interchangeable. I have supported this with scholarly and textual evidence. All you can muster in your desperation are your personal opinions. How pathetic!

    And by the way, as I said, the Bible refers to “El” as being an old man with grey hair. Is that “God” to you? And old guy? Sounds more like pagan mythology to me. And that is exactly what it is…a pagan myth that was borrowed from Canaanite folklore.

    Do you have any substantive rebuttal to any of this evidence, or are you going to continue to provide your own baseless opinions and straw men?

    Like

  49. LOL DC, now you are really getting desperate! It’s the modus operandi of Christians to resort to red herrings and straw men arguments when they have way of responding intelligently to any challenge to their Bible by Muslims.

    Didn’t I say you need to know your place? First, you try to teach me about what the Bible says. Now, you’re trying to me what the Quran and Hadiths say? Know your place dude. I don’t need you to teach me about my religion. I know your Bible and I know the Quran and Hadiths even better.

    Stick to the issue at hand. Your Bible states that angels copulated with humans. The author of Jude believed it and even quoted from an apocryphal book that gave a detailed account of this event. Do you admit that?

    Like

  50. Job lived after the flood, Genesis 6 narrates events before the flood. So the term sons of God was already defined and understood at the time the events in Genesis 6 took place, long before Job was written.

    The Genesis 6 account, as all biblical accounts, does not need an external context in order for it to make sense.

    Like

    • Your post makes no sense. If the phrase was “already defined and understood” before Job’s time as referring to humans, then it would have made for the author of “Job” to refer to the angels as the “sons of God”. However, if the phrase was actually “already defined and understood” as referring to angels, then it makes sense that the author used that term.

      As it stands, there is overwhelming evidence that the phrase was used for angels, and as I showed above, it was interpreted that way consistently by early Jews and Christians. The author of Jude was obviously familiar with the apocryphal book 1 Enoch and used it as a source. 1 Enoch mentions angels copulating with humans.

      You guys need to give it up. The evidence is overwhelmingly against your revisionist interpretations.

      Like

  51. You cannot arbitrarily impose the context of Job on Genesis 6. The meanings of words are derived from their context.

    There is nothing in the context of Genesis 6 to suggest that angels are having sex with humans.

    It is clear from the OT that God had spiritual children during OT times. Genesis 6 is just one example of this.

    Like

    • Erasmus, your personal opinions are very unimpressive. If you want to remain in your denial, that’s your business. I already showed that the context of Genesis 6 very clearly shows that angels had sex with humans. Get over it. You haven’t responded to the points I raised, which doesn’t surprise me at all. You are very high on your own opinions.

      I notice you also haven’t answered my question about Jude and Enoch. DC has remained silent on this issue, and so have you. Why are you apologists so dishonest with yourselves? How deep in denial are you?

      Like

  52. DC, you said on the other thread:

    “Hi Faiz
    Maybe I can get your thoughts on this because you are adamant that the Angels had sex with women.

    Does God call demons his sons?

    And if he doesn’t are you saying that this is the act of righteous Angels?”

    Oy vei, are you willfully dense or can you just not help it? I don’t believe that angels had sex with women. I believe that your Bible says so! Get it?

    Now, will you answer my question, which you have been avoiding? Your Bible states that angels copulated with humans. The author of Jude believed it and even quoted from an apocryphal book that gave a detailed account of this event. Do you admit that?

    Like

  53. No answers from Erasmus or DC?

    Why was “El” described as an old man with grey hair? Why did the author of Jude quote from the apocryphal book 1 Enoch, which clearly refers to angel-human sex? Why does Genesis 6 consistently refer to the “sons of God” and the “daughters of men” separately if the latter were just men? If they were just men, why were their children compared to the Nephilim and described as being “mighty”?

    Like

  54. Nothing from DC or Erasmus? Oh well…

    I guess we can conclude that the author of Jude believed that angels had sex with angels, just as the author of 1 Enoch did. Problem solved!

    Like

    • If sons of God= angels then I guess that according to Faiz’s Islam there are no angels since Allah has no sons.

      So Faiz the rat just baited himself and dismantled his own religion! Good one!!

      But seriously, that passage has been controversial from the get go; to assert that it must be a reference to angels is to ignore the mass amount of scholarship to the contrary. But we all know Faiz likes arguing ad nauseum with total disregard for nuance and differing thought.

      Like

    • LOL, so Lassie attempts to take a crack at the embarrassing expose of his Bible, and does what he usually does, which is to deflect and make an utterly idiotic straw man argument!

      Poor, poor Lassie…such childish logic…

      Pay attention now, you mangy mutt. I don’t believe in your Bible you moron, so I could care less what your Bible calls angels. Of course, they are not really “sons of God”. That’s just the way your contradictory and heavily-edited Bible calls them. So what?

      Secondly, you obviously did not read the posts above and simply decided to intervene in a topic just to open your big mouth. Oooh, such anger from the rabid mutt!

      Get it together Lassie. Early Jews and Chrustians believed the sons of God were angels. Don’t be lazy. Read the posts above and educate yourself. Your Bible says angels copulated with humans! Ouch!!!

      I also noted that you didn’t answer the question that your fellow apologists cannot answer. The author of Jude quoted from 1 Enoch. 1 Enoch clearly refers to angel-human copulation. Do you admit that? Come on now, bark all you want but try to be a man and answer the question! 😉

      Like

    • Hi Faiz
      You keep trying to make an issue out of Jude quoting Enoch as though he was quoting from his book.

      Consider the following…

      Act 17:28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.

      The apostle Paul is quoting from a poem called Phaenomena by Aratus, the fact that Paul uses does not mean Paul believes it is inspired but he uses the quote to make a point.

      1Co 15:33 Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners.

      This is a quotation that comes from a Greek writer called Menander 343-291AD in his play called Thais…does this mean that Paul thinks there is something great about this work?

      Paul is using this to again a point.

      Tit 1:12 One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, The Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies.

      Paul is quoting a poet called Epimenides here is a section of the poem.

      They fashioned a tomb for you, holy and high one.
      Cretans, always liars, evil beasts, idle bellies
      But you are not dead, you live and abide forever.
      For in you we live and move have our being.

      Even Jesus when dealing with Saul used a phrase to through to him that has nothing to do with religion but the secular world

      Act 9:5 And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.

      The phrase “kick against the pricks” comes from Aeschtlus 525-456BC in his play called Agamemnon…but does that means it’s inspired

      What about Jude?

      Jud 1:14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,
      Jud 1:15 To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.

      Enoch 1:9 says

      And behold! He cometh with ten thousands of holy ones to execute judgement upon all, and to destroy [all] the ungodly: and to convict all flesh of all the works [of their ungodliness] which they have ungodly committed, and of all the hard things which ungodly sinners [have spoken] against Him.

      Here is my question if Jude was quoting from an apocryphal book written a couple of hundred before Jude was written then who was Moses quoting.

      The phrase “The Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints” is not unique to Jude or Enoch because Moses used it many years earlier.

      Deu 33:1 And this is the blessing, wherewith Moses the man of God blessed the children of Israel before his death.
      Deu 33:2 And he said, The LORD came from Sinai, and rose up from Seir unto them; he shined forth from mount Paran, and he came with ten thousands of saints: from his right hand went a fiery law for them.

      So there must oral tradition!

      Like

    • DC, you must be joking! Paul was quoting a Roman source, not a book which was regarded by many Jews as a canonical book. So nice try with the red herring.

      And do you honestly think Jude was quoting Deuteronomy or some “oral tradition”? Why would we think that when the only clear source for the quote is from 1 Enoch? It “must” be an “oral tradition”? Really? That’s like saying that craters are not caused by asteroids but rather an alien mother ship! You ignore the direct evidence in favor of some other absurd alternative for which no evidence exists.

      A reasonable person would look at the quote from Jude and the quote from Enoch and conclude that they are the same. Jude even named his source as Enoch! There was no need for an “oral tradition”! He had a direct source!

      You guys really make me laugh! How desperate are you? Denial is an ugly thing.

      Like

    • Hi Faiz
      Are you saying that you have to believe in the writing of a book that you take a quote from?

      Does Jude say he is quoting from what was written or from what was prophesied?

      Can you explain Moses using the phrase ” he cometh with 10,000 of his saints” this is thousands of years before Jude and closer to the time of the actual prophecy?

      My point is that you can quote something out a book a written work that says something that is true, yet not believe in the work of that writer, or from oral tradition passed down.

      just like Paul used Greek poets. Can you quote the Roman source you mentioned?

      The book of Enoch says the Giants were 450 ft tall and Muhammad said Adam was 90 ft tall maybe there is some relationship when it comes myths and legends.

      Like

  55. Paul, why you always gotta criticise a brother? 😉

    Mangy mutt…It’s one of those dogs with a skin disease. Lassie is clearly affected which explains why he barks so much! Lol!!!

    Liked by 1 person

  56. of course you have to say you care less because you self refuted your own religion. That must be slightly embarrassing. You seem to think you know what a son of God is, despite your religion teaching you that no such thing exists. Talk about a ratty confusion!!

    And I answered you already; this text has multiple competing interpretations. It always has. You probably never realised this given your “research” is normally based on ijaz or kaleemand I doubt you’ve ever done any academic Old Testament studies. But you can prove me wrong- what Old Testament theological or Hebrew studies have you done to think you can speak authoratatively on something your religion teaches you is non existence?

    Like

    • LOL, Lassie! You are so desperate to save your debunked religion, you resort to silly and logically flawed arguments!

      Your Bible says that the “sons of God” were angels, you idiot! Not I! I am just pointing out what the Bible is saying. I never said I believed it! Of course I don’t believe in angels descending to earth to copulate with humans. This absurd story is Biblical, not Quranic. I don’t believe in such asinine garbage. The problem for you is that this story is found in your Bible. Sorry! 😉

      You didn’t answer anything you silly dog. I already dealt with the “multiple competing interpretations” above. You are a late arrival on this thread. I’ve been there, done that. The “competing interpretations” did not exist until much later. Early Jews and Christians believed that the “sons of God” were angels. The Dead Sea Scrolls and the early church fathers all believed as such. Even the so-called “inspired” author of Jude believed it, and so did the author of 2 Peter. In fact, the author of Jude quoted from the apocryphal book 1 Enoch and used it as a source. This book provides a more detailed version of the story.

      And by the way, you laughable apologist, I have relied on my own research to come to this conclusion! Unlike you, I actually do real research. All of the sources I have used above are from Jewish and Christian sources, not Muslim ones. I know it hurts, Lassie! LOL!

      Like

  57. Sons of God and daughters of men are literary devices to offset and contrast the opposing groups of men in terms of their spiritual condition:

    e.g. King James Bible Ezekiel 16:57

    Before thy wickedness was discovered, as at the time of thy reproach of the daughters of Syria, and all that are round about her, the daughters of the Philistines, which despise thee round about.

    Another problem with the view that they are angels is that the angels are invisible to men. How do men have sex with invisible beings?

    They are only made visible when they have a specific message to give to specific human beings.

    “Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.”

    “1Again 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. 2And the LORD said unto Satan, From whence comest thou? And Satan answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it”

    Like

    • The giants and the mighty men are both human beings.

      Like

    • Erasmus, you keep resorting to circular arguments which only damage your view even more.

      How is the phrase “daughters of the Philistines” the same as “daughters of men”? The former is referring to a specific group of human beings, whereas the latter is referring to human beings in general. Thus, it makes no sense to differentiate between “sons of God” and “daughters of men”, especially in the context of sexual relations. If the sons of God were men, then who else would they have been attracted to?

      It is obvious that your reasons for denying the angel interpretation are largely based on the fact that you find the idea to be absurd. That is why your arguments are not based on the actual text but on your own presuppositions.

      But even then, your presuppositions are absurd and contradict your own Bible! Angels are “invisible”? What about the angels that visited Lot? They were not “invisible”! In fact, the townspeople wanted to have sex with them!

      “And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.”

      And you STILL haven’t answered the question of why the author of Jude, who was supposedly “inspired”, quoted from an apocryphal book (1 Enoch), which incidentally also gave a detailed account of how the angels descended to earth and decided to have sex with humans. You guys are avoiding this question like the plague!

      Like

  58. Faiz,

    The phrase daughters of men in contrast to sons of God describes how the community of those walking with God begins to intermarry with those who did not.

    You have no argument from the context itself which demands any other interpretation. You have to go to events in the future to impose a foreign context upon the passage.

    If you read my comment I did not say that angels are never visible but that normally that is the case. The visitations of angels are the exception not the rule.

    The idea that angels had sex with men is absurd because of what the bible tells us about them, not because I am embarrassed by the idea. Also it is not necessary to impose this idea on the bible.

    The passage in Job is expanding the scope of the term “sons of God” to include angels. Up to to that point in time it only referred to men.

    I don’t agree with any of your claims regarding the book of Jude.

    According to your argument Israel itself must be an angel:

    Hosea 11 v 1 When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt.

    God must have been drawing on a tradition of usage of the concept of men being the sons of God when he spoke through Hosea. This must be based on his previous dealings with men as is evident from Genesis 6. It just doesn’t spring out of nowhere.

    Like

    • Erasmus, your entire premise is a circular argument. Why would the phrase “bene ha-elohim” be used only once to describe men and then from that point on be used EXCLUSIVELY to describe angels? You are desperately trying to apply an interpretation that simply does not fit.

      The context of Genesis 6 strongly shows that they “sons of God” were angels. That is why they are distinguished from “men” and the “daughters of men”.

      Since angels did take human form in the Bible, then your argument is moot. What difference does it make if it wasn’t “normal”?

      And no, you find the idea absurd from the get-go, and that is why you are trying so hard to deny it. You know that it creates all sorts of problems for your Bible, so to avoid those problems, you deny the clear context and the consistent interpretations of early Jews and Christians.

      You have no evidence, aside from your personal opinions, that the author of Job was “expanding the scope of the term”.

      Whether you choose to “agree” or not about Jude and Enoch, the evidence is there. I didn’t ask for your personal opinion. I asked you to acknowledge the plain facts. Did Jude quote from 1 Enoch or not?

      Finally, your straw man argument about Hosea 11:1 is another failed apologetic slight of hand. The phrase I am interested in is “bene ha-elohim”. That phrase is not used in Hosea 11:1.

      And by the way, appealing to Hosea 11:1 backfires for you. Like DC, in your desperate attempts to use other verses of the Bible to help you, you actually shoot yourself in the foot. Since you acknowledge that Hosea 11:1 is talking about ISRAEL, then the author of the Gospel of Matthew was obviously mistaken when he misquoted Hosea 11:1 as referring to the MESSIAH:

      “And so was fulfilled what the Lord had said through the prophet: “Out of Egypt I called my son”” (Matthew 2:15).

      Like

  59. Faiz,

    who said :” Why would the phrase “bene ha-elohim” be used only once to describe men and then from that point on be used EXCLUSIVELY to describe angels?”.

    That’s easy to answer because of rememptive history. After the flood there is no community to which the term could apply until Jesus introduces the new form of the kingdom of God.

    “Erasmus, your entire premise is a circular argument. Why would the phrase “bene ha-elohim” be used only once to describe men and then from that point on be used EXCLUSIVELY to describe angels?”

    No it doesn’t. There is no indication in the context itself which is why you have to go in the future to find a meaning for something in the past. This is absurd and irrational hermeneutics. Driven and justified only by your islamic mindset.

    What did the phrase mean at the time it was written to the writer and those who experienced these events.. Angels are unheard of until after the flood. This makes sense because God was speaking to men without the mediation of angels before the flood. There was no need for them before the flood.

    “Did Jude quote from 1 Enoch or not?” No he didn’t. He was inspired.

    “Finally, your straw man argument about Hosea 11:1 is another failed apologetic slight of hand. The phrase I am interested in is “bene ha-elohim”. That phrase is not used in Hosea 11:1.”

    This is just another example of the semantic games that Islam apologists like to play. If the exact phrase that I decree should appear does not appear in the text then my argument is true. Hosea puts more than a few nails in the islamic coffin so you have to go to desperate lengths to neutralize what it is saying.

    ” Since you acknowledge that Hosea 11:1 is talking about ISRAEL, then the author of the Gospel of Matthew was obviously mistaken when he misquoted Hosea 11:1 as referring to the MESSIAH:”

    Another straw man. Who said that Hosea 11 v 1 is not referring to Israel in it’s original context?

    An interesting discussion. Let’s carry on. Who knows it might end up being longer than the trinity thread.

    Why don’t you respond at the other thread which quotes a scholar defining the phrase son of God? I have started the ball rolling for you.

    Have a good day.

    Like

    • More personal opinions and no substantive evidence again Erasmus.

      You assume “redemptive history” because of your Christian mindset. Go figure. The authors of Genesis and Job did not believe in “redemptive history”.

      Why is it that early Jews and Christians interpreted the verse so differently from you? Why did even Christian scholars, who believed in “redemptive history” like you, still interpret the verse as referring to angels?

      Jude didn’t quote from Enoch? REALLY??? Let’s see the evidence again:

      Jude: “Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about them: “See, the Lord is coming with thousands upon thousands of his holy ones 15 to judge everyone, and to convict all of them of all the ungodly acts they have committed in their ungodliness, and of all the defiant words ungodly sinners have spoken against him.””

      Enoch: “And behold! He cometh with ten thousands of His holy ones To execute judgement upon all, And to destroy all the ungodly:

      And to convict all flesh Of all the works of their ungodliness which they have ungodly committed, And of all the hard things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him.”

      You must really be in denial or just plain delusional to deny that Jude quoted from Enoch.

      The Gospel of Matthew used Hosea as allegedly prophesying Jesus’ arrival from Egypt, when Hosea was actually referring to the exodus of the Israelites from Egypt.

      What thread are you referring to about the “son of God”? How does that change your failure to acknowledge the overwhelming scholarly evidence about the meaning of the phrase “bene ha-elohim” as angels? Distracting from your failures doesn’t change that they are failures.

      Like

  60. Faiz,

    This book Enoch was written after Jude to distort the message of Jude and fool people like you.

    According to Wikipedia there is no hebrew text:

    “It is wholly extant only in the Ge’ez language, with Aramaic fragments from the Dead Sea Scrolls and a few Greek and Latin fragments.”

    Why didn’t the Jews transmit this supposedly oral tradition in their own language?

    I’m not fooled by this con trick. You obviously are.

    you said: “You assume “redemptive history” because of your Christian mindset. Go figure. The authors of Genesis and Job did not believe in “redemptive history”.”

    The authors of Genesis didn’t see the future, which is recorded for us in the bible, and they didn’t have the prophecies that came later such as:

    “King James Bible

    Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered; and it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God.”

    The common thread running through Jude is rebellion against the authority of God or those who are invested with this authority, such as Moses:

    4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.

    Paul is saying that this has all happened before and those who rebelled did not escape the punishment of God. He gives examples of those who rebelled against God and how they were destroyed.

    “The Gospel of Matthew used Hosea as allegedly prophesying Jesus’ arrival from Egypt, when Hosea was actually referring to the exodus of the Israelites from Egypt.”

    We would believe that the Holy Spirit had Jesus in mind when he moved Hosea to write the original prophecy. Matthew confirms this being moved of the Holy Spirit to record it.

    Obviously as a Muslim you don’t believe this. I don’t expect you to.

    Like

    • Erasmus, your research is very poor. Don’t be lazy. According to the same Wikipedia source that you used, three fragments have been discovered at Qumran in Hebrew! We already know that Enoch was used by the Qumran community. So, regardless of your special pleading, the book of Enoch was written much earlier than Jude. Get over it. You’ve already conned yourself by denying facts due to your bias and presuppositions.

      The “authors of Genesis”? I thought you believed that Moses wrote Genesis? I thought it was your belief that God dictated the Torah to Moses?

      So now Hosea was actually referring to the Messiah? Is this the best you can do? Go in circles and assume things when it is convenient?

      Like

  61. “What thread are you referring to about the “son of God”?”

    If you do a search on this site using “son of god” you will find it.

    Like

    • Wow, before you were too lazy to do adequate research and now you are too lazy to just give me the link? You brought it up, so you might as well just give me a link. This blog has many threads where the phrase “son of God” would be mentioned.

      Like

  62. DC said:

    “Hi Faiz
    Are you saying that you have to believe in the writing of a book that you take a quote from?

    Does Jude say he is quoting from what was written or from what was prophesied?

    Can you explain Moses using the phrase ” he cometh with 10,000 of his saints” this is thousands of years before Jude and closer to the time of the actual prophecy?

    My point is that you can quote something out a book a written work that says something that is true, yet not believe in the work of that writer, or from oral tradition passed down.

    just like Paul used Greek poets. Can you quote the Roman source you mentioned?

    The book of Enoch says the Giants were 450 ft tall and Muhammad said Adam was 90 ft tall maybe there is some relationship when it comes myths and legends.”

    Wow DC, surely you realize how silly you sound! If the author of Jude was quoting Enoch, and a written version of Enoch does exist, why would we assume that he was quoting an “oral tradition”? The burden of proof is on you to prove this. Your assumptions don’t prove anything.

    As I said, Deuteronomy is no where close to being the same tradition. Here is what it says:

    “The Lord came from Sinai
    and dawned over them from Seir;
    he shone forth from Mount Paran.
    He came with[a] myriads of holy ones
    from the south, from his mountain slopes.”

    Here is what Jude wrote:

    “See, the Lord is coming with thousands upon thousands of his holy ones 15 to judge everyone, and to convict all of them of all the ungodly acts they have committed in their ungodliness, and of all the defiant words ungodly sinners have spoken against him.”

    You must really be desperate to argue that both these quotes are from the same tradition. One refers to the Israelites receiving the Law, while the other refers to a future judgment of mankind.

    Why would a supposedly “inspired” author quote from an apocryphal (and presumably “uninspired”) book?

    And by the way, the only myths here are the angel-human copulation story in your Bible as well the story of “giants”. I can see that you are now trying to deny that the “giants” were actually “giants”! LOL!! How tall do you think these “giants” were? Are your presuppositions again making you misquote your own book?

    Like

    • Hi Faiz
      You did not deal with the points I raised.

      Does Jude say he is quoting from what was written or from what was prophesied?

      From Matthew to 1st Peter you can see the phrase “it is written” the verse in Jude doesn’t say anything about a book.

      just like Paul used Greek poets. Can you quote the Roman source you mentioned?

      Can you explain Moses using the phrase ” he cometh with 10,000 of his saints” the point is in both texts the Lord is coming!

      Jud 1:14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,
      Jud 1:15 To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.

      Enoch 1:9
      And behold! He cometh with ten thousands of holy ones to execute judgement upon all, and to destroy [all] the ungodly: and to convict all flesh of all the works [of their ungodliness] which they have ungodly committed, and of all the hard things which ungodly sinners [have spoken] against Him.

      You said…

      Why would a supposedly “inspired” author quote from an apocryphal (and presumably “uninspired”) book?

      Well that’s the point I was making to you with the Apostle Paul quoting one of the Cretan prophets in Titus 1:12

      Paul didn’t believe the works of the prophet but he used something the prophet said that was true.

      You said…
      And by the way, the only myths here are the angel-human copulation story in your Bible as well the story of “giants”. I can see that you are now trying to deny that the “giants” were actually “giants”! LOL!! How tall do you think these “giants” were? Are your presuppositions again making you misquote your own book?

      Faiz be honest it is your prophet that said Adam was 90feet tall and also everyone who goes to paradise will be the same height.

      Enoch says 450 feet tall which is about the length of the ark.

      You myth is on you guys your authentic Hadith Muhammad claims this

      1. You need to honest and admit that the text does not say the union produced Giants as in extremely tall people.

      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.

      The tallest people mentioned in the bible are Goliath who was about 9 feet tall and another Og King of Bashan who was said to be around 11 feet tall maybe a bit more.

      Mat 24:37 But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
      Mat 24:38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark

      Jesus gives no indication of anything wrong in regards to the marriages in the days of Noah.

      Like

  63. Faiz,

    the link for the son of god thread:

    https://bloggingtheology.net/2016/09/08/the-truth-about-son-of-god-in-the-bible/

    If three tiny fragments of Enoch in Hebrew were found at Qumran that proves nothing. They cannot be dated with any accuracy. No one knows who originally wrote it. The book is a forgery written after the NT had already been written.

    “We already know that Enoch was used by the Qumran community.”

    I guess somebody used it for something but who and when? All speculation. The fragments could be as old as late first century AD or early 2nd century.

    You still haven’t provided a reason why the phrase used for sons of God in Job must always and only refer to angels wherever it is found in the bible. This is your presupposition and opinion.

    Jude is talking about men who crept in unawares and what attributes they displayed. They are compared to the angels who despised dominion, the rebelling israelites and the MEN of Sodom and Gomorrah.

    Your theory does not fit the passage.

    Like

    • Erasmus, you are getting really disingenuous and dishonest. Your bias is blatantly obvious. There is no debate among scholars about the age of the Dead Sea Scrolls, no matter how much you want to believe there is.

      You want a “reason” for why I believe “sons of God” must always and only refer to angels? I already mentioned it multiple times! The answer is right in front of you! Just read the Tanakh. Outside of Genesis 6, it is ALWAYS used for angels. That is a fact. The only presupposition is yours because you don’t want to believe that the Tanakh is independent on the NT.

      Jude was talking about the sins of the ANGELS and compared them to the sexual sins of the MEN of Sodom and Gamorrah. And he also quoted from a book that was well-known in his time that mentioned the sexual sins of the angels. The theory, which is not mine by the way but shared by most scholars, very neatly fits the passage. Your absurd theory of “redemptive history” fails and is based on you trying to force your own beliefs into the text. It’s like trying to forcefully put two pieces of a puzzle together even though they do not and will not fit.

      Like

  64. DC, I did deal with your points. Your points are based on special pleading and the burden of proof is on you to prove that the author of Jude was quoting some “oral tradition” rather than a written source. We know that the book of Enoch was well known. It was read by the Qumran community, so it preceded Jude by centuries. You need to prove with actual evidence (not your presumptive theories) that Jude’s almost word for word reproduction of 1 Enoch is not what it seems. I have no reason to simply accept your absurd theories just as I wouldn’t have any reason to believe that earth’s craters were caused by aliens rather than asteroids.

    I am shocked that you so easily misquote your own Bible. Deuteronomy 33 was not making a prophecy about the future but was referring to the revealing of the Law that had already occurred! Here is what it says:

    “And he said, The Lord came from Sinai, and rose up from Seir unto them; he shined forth from mount Paran, and he came with ten thousands of saints: from his right hand went a fiery law for them” (KJV).

    “The Lord came from Sinai and dawned over them from Seir; he shone forth from Mount Paran. He came with myriads of holy ones from the south, from his mountain slopes” (NIV).

    And once again, here is what Jude wrote:

    “And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,

    15 To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him” (KJV).

    “Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about them: “See, the Lord is coming with thousands upon thousands of his holy ones 15 to judge everyone, and to convict all of them of all the ungodly acts they have committed in their ungodliness, and of all the defiant words ungodly sinners have spoken against him” (NIV).

    One is a statement about the past. The other is a statement about the future. Are you really trying to make them one and the same?

    The author of Jude directly quoted from a well-known book. You don’t want it to be true that he trusted the Book of Enoch, which is a book you regard as “non-canonical”, but just because you hold that view does not mean that the author of Jude held such a view. Once again, we see your presuppositions dictating your biased view of the evidence.

    DC, be honest. It is your Bible that mentions “giants” on earth, not the Quran or Ahadith. As I already explained, the hadith about Adam is referring to his height in Paradise, not earth.

    You must be joking that Genesis 6 does not state that giants were the result of the sexual union of the “sons of God” and humans. It says so!

    “There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that>/b>, 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.”

    As for your special pleading about the actual size of these “giants”, you are again resorting to your silly presuppositions. The descriptions of the “Nephilim” does not leave anything to the imagination. They are described just as they are, really tall people. Take Numbers 13:33:

    “We saw the Nephilim there (the descendants of Anak come from the Nephilim). We seemed like grasshoppers in our own eyes, and we looked the same to them.”

    Do you honestly think that it would be appropriate to compare a normal sized individual to a 9 or 11 foot “giant” by referring to the former as “grasshoppers”?

    But let’s say that you are right about the actual height. Where is the evidence for these “giants” then? We have found millions of bones of dinosaurs from millions of years ago but I know of no human fossils of a 9-13 foot human? Where did these fossils go?

    Like

    • Hi Faiz

      This is how I know you are not interested in reading what someone else says

      1. Look at what you said.

      You said…

      I am shocked that you so easily misquote your own Bible. Deuteronomy 33 was not making a prophecy about the future but was referring to the revealing of the Law that had already occurred! Here is what it says:

      I’m not misquoting anything I asked you where did the phrase “The Lord cometh with 10,000 of his saints” come from?

      Is that phrase unique to the book of Enoch or Jude? If not where did Moses get it from?

      2. Secondly
      You taken absolutely no notice of the fact that Paul quote in Titus 1:12 from…

      1:12 One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, The Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies.

      Paul is quoting a poet called Epimenides here is a section of the poem.

      They fashioned a tomb for you, holy and high one.
      Cretans, always liars, evil beasts, idle bellies
      But you are not dead, you live and abide forever.
      For in you we live and move have our being.

      The point is just because you quote from a book does not mean you believe it is inspired!

      3. Giants in the earth.
      Can you show in scripture where God calls a fallen angel or demon if you like his sons?

      Can you show me from the text where women had children from fallen angels?

      Did Jesus mention an issue with the marriages in those days?

      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.

      From what I can see in the text the word giant does not mean what our 21st century mind thinks

      nephı̂yl nephil

      nef-eel’, nef-eel’
      From H5307; properly, a feller, that is, a bully or tyrant: – giant.

      4. Sons of God

      You originally asked for one example.

      You want to set the agenda for how we speak about God I’m sorry we will continue to use scripture

      Hos 1:10 Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered; and it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God

      Are the living God (el) and the living God (Elohim) two different Gods when speaking to Israel?

      5. Book of Jude.

      Jud 1:3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.
      Jud 1:4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.
      Jud 1:5 I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not.
      Jud 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.
      Jud 1:7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

      The sin of the Jews was unbelief.

      The sin of the Angels was rebellion

      The sin of Sodom was sexual immorality.

      Verse 7 the cities around them, in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication.

      Please explain to me how married people Genesis 6 are committing fornication like Sodom?

      Like

  65. DC, can you tell me what source the author of Jude was using when he wrote the following:

    “But even the archangel Michael, when he was disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, did not himself dare to condemn him for slander but said, “The Lord rebuke you!””

    Was this another “oral tradition” or was this based on something more concrete?

    Like

  66. Faiz,

    “Outside of Genesis 6, it is ALWAYS used for angels. That is a fact.”

    That might be a fact but it is not an argument. You are still not giving any reason why this fact forces the phrase to mean angels in Genesis 6 . I want the reason please.

    “Jude was talking about the sins of the ANGELS and compared them to the sexual sins of the MEN of Sodom and Gamorrah.”

    No he wasn’t.

    ” 4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.”

    He is talking about the sexual sins of these men and comparing them to the sexual sins of Sodom and Gomorrah.

    5 I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not. 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. 7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

    8 Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities

    THESE FILTHY DREAMERS DEFILE THE FLESH, despise dominion ( AS THE ANGELS ), and speak evil of dignities ( those who rebelled against Moses authority)

    These are not the angels. He is talking about men not angels.

    You are twisting and peverting the obvious and clear meaning of the passage to suit your agenda and bias.

    Like

Trackbacks

  1. Faiz gets it wrong about the meaning of the term “sons of God” in the OT | Badmanna's Blog
  2. Eramus and DC against Faiz, the battle continues | Badmanna's Blog

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: