You aren’t reading the whole sentence! It said clearly they sinned in like manner to the angels in v6!
Predestined?
- Thread starter Butch5
- Start date
You aren’t reading the whole sentence! It said clearly they sinned in like manner to the angels in v6!
Butch5
Active
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2019
- Messages
- 3,343
"Even as" shows a comparison. He didn't say the angels committed fornication. He said they would be judged even as Sodom and Gomorah and the cities around them who committed fornication
Butch5
Active
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2019
- Messages
- 3,343
He didn't say anything about Gen. 6. He said the angels who left their first abobe. The "like manner" statement refers to the cities who committed fornication in like manner as Sodom and Gomorah.
Clearly you don’t want to admit the truth. I even highlighted the words “in like manner” but you choose not to see them. And no you interpret that “in like manner” wrongly as all in denial will. Farewell.
Jude 1:7 Good News Translation Remember Sodom and Gomorrah, and the nearby towns, whose people acted as those angels did and indulged in sexual immorality and perversion: they suffer the punishment of eternal fire as a plain warning to all.
Jude 1:7 Holman
In the same way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them committed sexual immorality and practiced perversions, just as angels did, and serve as an example by undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.
Jude 1:7 NET
So also Sodom and Gomorrah and the neighboring towns, since they indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire in a way similar to these angels, are now displayed as an example by suffering the punishment of eternal fire.
Sadly the OP is in denial of this truth.
Jude 1:7 Holman
In the same way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them committed sexual immorality and practiced perversions, just as angels did, and serve as an example by undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.
Jude 1:7 NET
So also Sodom and Gomorrah and the neighboring towns, since they indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire in a way similar to these angels, are now displayed as an example by suffering the punishment of eternal fire.
Sadly the OP is in denial of this truth.
Butch5
Active
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2019
- Messages
- 3,343
I'm not in denial. Your not making the case. Did you read the link I posted to you?
You are in denial. You don’t want to admit the truth that angels committed the sin of sexual immorality but Jude1:7 says they did.
Jude 1:7 Good News Translation Remember Sodom and Gomorrah, and the nearby towns, whose people acted as those angels did and indulged in sexual immorality and perversion: they suffer the punishment of eternal fire as a plain warning to all.
Jude 1:7 Holman
In the same way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them committed sexual immorality and practiced perversions, just as angels did, and serve as an example by undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.
Jude 1:7 NET
So also Sodom and Gomorrah and the neighboring towns, since they indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire in a way similar to these angels, are now displayed as an example by suffering the punishment of eternal fire.
Butch5
Active
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2019
- Messages
- 3,343
Look at the original texts.
Butch5
Active
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2019
- Messages
- 3,343
I was wrong when I said the "in like manner" refers to the cities being like Sodom and Gomorah. I was typing that on my phone and trying to recall the verse from memory. However, this is a perfect example of the problem with translations. The Greek text of verse 7 does not even contain the word angels. The translators are inserting their theology into the text. Here is a literal translation of the text.
5 and to remind you I intend, you knowing once this, that the Lord, a people out of the land of Egypt having saved, again those who did not believe did destroy;
6 messengers also, those who did not keep their own principality, but did leave their proper dwelling, to a judgment of a great day, in bonds everlasting, under darkness He hath kept,
7 as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them, in like manner to these, having given themselves to whoredom, and gone after other flesh, have been set before -- an example, of fire age-during, justice suffering.
8 In like manner, nevertheless, those dreaming also the flesh indeed do defile, and lordship they put away, and dignities they speak evil of, (Jude 1:5-8 YLT)
Notice in verse 5 those coming out of Egypt who rebelled and God destroyed. Then he says the angels also. What did the angle do? They didn't keep their own principality and left their proper dwelling. Verse 7, Sodom and Gomorah and the cities around them, in like manner to these. Who are these? It could be only the angels, or it could be the angels and those who came out of Egypt and rebelled. I believe it is both. What did Sodom and Gomorah and the cities do? They rebelled. Verse 8, In like manner those dreaming defile the flesh, put away lordship, and speak evil of dignitaries. What did they do? They rebelled. Everyone one of these groups rebelled. That's why they face judgment. I think a key point to note here is that Jude compares Sodom and Gomorah to the angels and those who came out of Egypt. He doesn't compare the angels to Sodom and Gomorah.
7 as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them, in like manner to these
He's saying Sodom and Gomorah are like the angels and the rebellious of Egypt. How are Sodom and Gomorah like these two groups? They rebelled. We are given the first two groups who rebelled, neither of them is said to have committed fornication. Then we're told that two more groups, like the first two rebelled. Jude tells us what they did that was their rebellion.
This is a perfectly logical explanation that fits the text. It is different than the one you've come to. So we have two interpretations of the text. I personally think this one better fits Scripture.
“In like manner” is used to highlight the fact that Sodom and Gomorrah along with some cities were guilty of the same sins as somebody else. What is the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah mentioned? Sexual fornication and going after strange flesh. Who is this somebody else? One needs to look at the sins mentioned!
V5 is talking about one case and it talks about the sin of unbelief. V6 and V7 are to be read together as another case and they talk about the sin of fornication and sexual immorality. It makes no sense to link v7 with v5 since they talk about two different sins, one of unbelief and one of fornication. However, the linking together of V6 and V7 are very clear in many translations:
V7 ESV just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality (in V5 there is no sin of sexual immorality mentioned so V7 cannot be linked together with V5! So Sodom and Gomorrah likewise indulged in sexual immorality with who? With the angels and not with the group of people mentioned in v5!)
V7 International Standard Likewise, Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities near them, which like them committed sexual sins and pursued homosexual activities (committed sexual sins like who? Definitely not referring to the people in v5 who were guilty of unbelief rather than sexual sins!)
V7 NIV In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns
V7 Berean Study In like manner, Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them
V7 Berean Literal just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them
V7 New American Standard just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them
V7 New Heart English Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them
Out of the 29 translations, 90% at least tried to link V7 with an earlier verse. But clearly the linking is with only V6 because V5 talks only about the sin of unbelief. AGAIN I don’t know why people won’t read the Bible as it is.
That said, my question remains unanswered: if the Book of Enoch is not the prophecy of Enoch mentioned by Jude, what and where is the prophecy?
Last edited:
Butch5
Active
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2019
- Messages
- 3,343
Only 90% tried to link it? Do you realize that you are reading someone's opinion of what the Bible says? So 90% of them think the angels committed sexual immorality. What about the other 10%? Are they simply wrong because they disagree? Have you researched why they disagree?
I gave you a perfectly reasonable interpretation and you've ignored it. I gave you link to consider about the "Sons of God". You've said nothing about that either. I can only conclude that you're not really interested in discussion. You presented what you consider evidence for your position and I addressed it. You may not agree or like my conclusion, but I addressed your evidence. You've simply skipped right past what I presented. I'm more than happy to discuss the subject, but you've got to address the information.
As I said in the post. Look at the original languages. The word angel doesn't even appear in verse 7. That tells you that people are inserting their own beliefs or understanding into the text. You should run away from such a translation. A translation should be as close to the original text as possible. That's how we can get the closest to the original meaning.
You said 90% said the angels committed sexual immortality. In some things a majority belief has weight. However, in Christian circles that's not really the case as much. Translators have to hold certain beliefs before they can even get on a translation board. If the only people you let translate all believe the same thing, guess what, all of the translations will be the same. What you should look at is why the 10% are different.
I never said your interpretation is unreasonable. I looked carefully at it and then examined again what the verses actually said. I came to the conclusion your interpretation is not what the verse actually says. And I gave you the explanation why V7 cannot be linked with v5, did you even consider it or not?
Let’s just be frank when you said I’m being biased that you are also being biased. But the very least I did was to prove why your interpretation is wrong. All you did was to offer an alternative interpretation, but my interpretation was not proven as wrong. Are you able to prove my interpretation wrong? If so, go ahead. If not, why did you not even consider changing your interpretation?
And you’ve misunderstood me. I never dismissed what you’ve presented, I’ve simply not had the time to examine it yet. We have not even got past the disagreement about Jude 1:6-7. If I am right about Jude 1:6-7 then the account of fallen angels committing sexual sins with human women is already somewhat established.
I still haven’t completed researched into this so I don’t say what you’ve shown is definitely true. That article upon quick glance is very opinionated and could well be biased and untrue. But let’s assume that the Book of Enoch is dubious for now.
I have a question, if the sons of God were mere men, how were they ever able to give birth to giants? What was different about these sons of God that they could mate with women and produce offspring that was so markedly different from the rest of humanity, even though they themselves were also mere men?
I doubt there is even an answer to the above. It is simply more sensible to believe that those sons of God could not be mere men.
Butch5
Active
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2019
- Messages
- 3,343
I know you didn't say it was unreasonable. You said nothing at all. You simply continued with your argument. I also didn't say you were biased. I simply used your number. I also went over the passage again and realized that I wasn't wrong when I was recalling the passage from memory. Here's the passage.
3 Beloved, all diligence using to write to you concerning the common salvation, I had necessity to write to you, exhorting to agonize for the faith once delivered to the saints,
4 for there did come in unobserved certain men, long ago having been written beforehand to this judgment, impious, the grace of our God perverting to lasciviousness, and our only Master, God, and Lord -- Jesus Christ -- denying,
5 and to remind you I intend, you knowing once this, that the Lord, a people out of the land of Egypt having saved, again those who did not believe did destroy;
6 messengers also, those who did not keep their own principality, but did leave their proper dwelling, to a judgment of a great day, in bonds everlasting, under darkness He hath kept,
7 as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them, in like manner to these, having given themselves to whoredom, and gone after other flesh, have been set before -- an example, of fire age-during, justice suffering.
8 In like manner, nevertheless, those dreaming also the flesh indeed do defile, and lordship they put away, and dignities they speak evil of,
9 yet Michael, the chief messenger, when, with the devil contending, he was disputing about the body of Moses, did not dare to bring up an evil-speaking judgment, but said, 'The Lord rebuke thee!' (Jude 1:3-9 YLT)
In verse 4 we see that Jude is speaking of certain ungodly men who turn the grace of God into lasciviousness and were denying the Lord God and Jesus. Then in verse 5 he says he's going to remind them of some things that happened in the past. First he mentions those who came out of Egypt who didn't believe. They were destroyed. Then he mentions the angels who did not keep their own principalities and left their own habitation. These too, have denied the Lord God. He says they are reserved in chains until a day of judgment. He says nothing about the angels committing fornication. Then he moves to Sodom and Gomorrah. Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, "In like manner to these." In like manner to who? To Sodom and Gomorrah. The cities around Sodom and Gomorrah in like manner to Sodom and Gomorrah gave themselves over to whoredom and had gone after other flesh. Then he goes on in verse 8 to say, In like manner, in like manner to who? Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, those dreaming "also" defile the flesh. They also put away Lordship. Again, they denied God. And they spoke evil of dignitaries. As a counter point he notes Michael the arch angel who when contesting with the devil would speak evil of him but rather said, the Lord rebuke you.
The whole point here is the judgment of those rejecting God. He gives four examples. Of two he mentions fornication, of the other two he doesn't.
Butch5
Active
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2019
- Messages
- 3,343
Of course the article is biased. It's a person's opinion. The key is to look at the argument being made and weight it on it's merits. So little is given on this subject that it's hard to answer your questions. What are giants to be begin with?
Goliath the Philistine who fought with David is one of the descendants of the giants. He was markedly different from the rest of humanity and much taller, bigger and stronger than common men. How was mere man able to reproduce such giants?
I am already disagreeing with the article because of its false premises and inference of Scripture. I’m only on page 4 at the moment.
All sin is ultimately rejection of God, but then according to you it is even pointless to point out what the sins are since the entire section is only about rejection of God. And what then is the sin of the angels that rendered them as rejecting God?? What does it mean by they left their proper dwelling and WHY is that sin?
I’ll just share the current objections I have to the article you’ve presented @Butch5. I really have no time to delve deeper atm:
1) The writer rejects the entire Book of Enoch on the premise that Enochic Judaism made “humans less the perpetrators than victims of sin”. That is a false and biased premise. I myself read the Book of Enoch, yet I never got the impression that humans are now completely ignorant of sin or should be excused from sin. Neither did the Book itself hold such a view, rather it is the view of some who read it. When the Book of Enoch writes “ascribe all sin to Azazel”, it is with the knowledge that this fallen angel first perpetrated sins, but when God still judged the earth’s inhabitants with the flood, it shows He never excused mankind from participating in those sins.
- 2) The writer rejects the Book of Enoch based on the premise that the Essenes, a dubious Jewish sect, regards it highly. That again is a false premise. Even if a text is true, it could still be highly regarded by heretics to support their own beliefs and practices. That alone doesn’t make the text itself false, just more liable to be misinterpreted and misused. The Roman Catholic Church has used Bible texts to support their own set of questionable practices, are we to reject the entire Bible now as false? Clearly not.
- 3) The writer of the article gave a personal interpretation of what 1 Timothy 4:1-3 meant about “doctrines of demons”. He said it means doctrines about origin of demons in order to discredit the book of Enoch. That is his inference and not what the verse actually said. Not a single translation ever said “doctrines of demons” means “doctrines ABOUT demons”, or else the translations would simply be written as that.
- 4) The writer rejects the book of Enoch based on his belief that there is no such thing as hybrid angel-human offsprings, no immortality of souls and thus no eternal torment. Yet in the book of Revelations there are three individuals who are indeed tormented forever in the Lake of Fire. Are they therefore hybrids of spirit-flesh (which makes it at least possible to be tormented forever) or are they still mere mortals since mere mortals do not have immortal souls? If they are mere mortals without immortal souls why do they get eternal torment?
“And their Seducer, The Devil, was cast into The Lake of Fire and Brimstone where The Beast and The False Prophet are, and they shall be tormented day and night for the eternity of eternities.” Revelation 20:10 Aramaic Bible
5) The writer rejects the hybrid human angel offspring as myth based on his notion that no hybrid babies were born by women who had sexual relations with fallen angels. That is his notion based on his limited information. It could well be the case that those women who did have those terrifying encounters never admitted to what really happened out of shame/fear etc or simply such events are never published by media. Lots of dark things are hidden and never reported by media but that does not mean they are not true or non-existent.
