The "Sons of God" issue has been settled. Did you get the memo?

According to what Brother Martin posted he has not... Wait a minute there is a scripture for that... He being dead yet speaketh... We all have to leave our building someday but will our words remain?... Only time will tell... Elvis' has so far... Brother Glen

'A hard-headed woman; a soft-hearted man--
They've been the cause of trouble ever since the world began!'

 

Firstly, let me note that this isn't an answer to the question I posed. I asked:

And you responded with the following.

In regards to this answer I note that it is (1) your answer, nor the authors (2) utterly devoid of any attempt at exegesis - which is telling, as I am sure if the link could made through scripture itself this response would not have been necessary.

Now, to analyse the response in sentence by sentence.

You said:

You have suggested I have a 'contextual blindspot' which, by itself is a meaningless assessment of my response - let's look at the text (have you noticed that I am prepared to post it for analysis?)

2 Peter 2:4 For if God did not spare the angels who sinned, but cast them down to hell and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved for judgment... (NKJ)

Now, parsing the verse we not that Peter is asserting the following:

1) There were angles that sinned
2) God did not spare these angels
3) rather he:
(a) cast them into hell
(b) delivered them into chains of darkness
4) where they reserved for the final judgement.

What Peter does not say is when these things happened, indeed the only clue we have is that is seems from v5 and v6 that Peter is speaking in chronological order - hence it logically follows that this verse refers to events prior to the flood. However, it is huge leap to go from that conclusion and arrive at Gen 6:1-4.

Indeed as I look at 2 Pet 2:4 I see a tremendous emphasis on the judgement these angles received however when I turn to Gen 6 I don't read of any judgement falling on Angels, rather the judgement falls on 'men' (Hb אָדָ֤ם )

So again I ask for the exegetical link.

Next you said:

And of course you can provided properly cited quotations to support that assertion?

Now, even if you could, what makes you think 1st Century Jewish opinions are to be considered sound - this is the generation that didn't recognized their messiah who the whole of the OT spoke about - are we really supposed to put a lot of weight in their often fanciful interpretations of the Old Testament?

The reality is the Jude 6 is even harder to link to Gen 6:1-4 then 2 pet 2:4

Jude 1:6 And the angels who did not keep their proper domain, but left their own abode, He has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of the great day;

Now Jude jumps straight onto Sodom and Gomorrah - he doesn't even provide the Noah reference.

So again, the same question, please provide the exegetical link that ties this verse back to gen 6:1-4

Next you said:

Why does this have to be an event listed in the torah? Why can't Peter and Jude be referring to something that isn't mentioned specifically (or in detail) in the torah? (By which I assume you mean the first five books of the bible - for the word is rather flexible in meaning).

Maybe they refer to something that happened prior to Gen 3?

Maybe they refer to something that is mentioned elsewhere in scripture

In short your restrictive scope that allow for the search of evidence speaks more to bias then actually thought

 

I can assure you talk to my other brethren on here and we are definitely not Calvinists... Although some think we are... Brother Glen

 

Yet the reformed believer is the only one in this discussion who seems able to interact with the text of scripture rather then rely on assertion and vague reference to 1st Century Jewish thought (you know the one who didn't recognise their messiah)

Firstly, I have heard nothing of the gospel project and know nothing of the authors, but a quick perusal of the website doesn't tell me this is distinctly Calvinist material and the fact that I know nothing of this resource also tend to undermine your apparent assertion that this is the teaching resource all Calvinists rely on for our indoctrination and brainwashing

If that is the case you won't have any problem supporting that assertion with some evidence provided from reformed sources (not second hand assertions).

Of course it is an utter nonsense to suggest that the ones who emphasize the divine work in salvation are downplaying the supernatural aspects of scripture - the reality is we rely upon them for the central aspects of our teaching.

Again, I am sure you won't have any trouble bringing up properly cited evidence that supports your assertion.

Calvin drew heavily on all the ECF - all that testifies to is the rich christian heritage he lent upon - he wasn't one for novelties.

And what the fact that you don't even give us the proper label, but instead refer to 'reformists' suggest about your understanding of these issues. I said in my previous post that I would like to see how you interact with Calvinists and I have to ask - is this it? Do you have meaningful and concrete for me to get my teeth into or is it all just a hodgepodge of assertion, misinformation and straw-men arguments based in hearsay?[/quote][/quote]

 

Firstly, I stated I believed that the order of the 3 events Peter refers to 2 Pet 2:4-6 are presented in chronological order.

Then I asserted that I don't see any biblical evidence to support that Genesis 1:2 which says The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. (NKJ) has anything to do the the events Peter details in 2 Pet 2:4

Your question that you pose, seems to rely on the same logic as those who suggest this is a reference to Gen 6:1-4 - ie, it must be this because it can't be any other.

When we look at 2 pet 2:4 we read:

2 Peter 2:4 For if God did not spare the angels who sinned, but cast them down to hell and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved for judgment; (NKJ)

Now, I wonder where those angels were before they were cast out? Is there any implication that they were on this earth?

I would say not - now, I don't know what impact their sin had on their environment because I am not told exactly what effect it had, indeed I am not told what environment they were in. i suspect it was a spiritual realm (Eph 6:12)

I assume you are referring to James 1:15?

I wonder if maybe your question would be answered but looking at what death is? Adam and Eve died the day they ate the fruit (yet physically they lived on for hundreds of years) - death is separation from God - and so Peter tells us who suffered death (sepertaion from God) - the angels

Sometime before Gen 3, but we cannot be more specific then that! However, if pushed I would say sometime after God spoke the words recorded in Gen 1:31. It seems strange to me that God would call all of his creation as being very good if there were some angels (created beings) that had fallen.

I don't know what that means.[/QUOTE]

 

If I'm not worth the effort as you assert in post 54, why have you again responded to me?

It seems to me that all my requests for you to back up you your assertions with evidence have been entirely fair. It is also clear that of the two of us I am the only one who has made any attempt to interact with the texts of scripture in question.

And your responses, especially these last two, do more for my cause then anything i could possibly write as they demonstrate that all you have to counter sound exegesis and reasonable requests is bluster and insults - any reasoning reader will see exactly what is going on here, so my sincere thanks for making this so easy for me.

 

It seems I'm still worth replying to - or insulting - when not drop the childish behaviour!

I wonder if we took a poll how many would agree with you that I am the one exhibiting 'an attitude' - the simple truth is I have engaged with the text of scripture and I have tried to engage with you.

I'm not going to expound on all your nits... BUY the book.

The Unseen Realm: Recovering the Supernatural Worldview of the Bible[/QUOTE]

As far as I am aware 'nits' are the eggs laid by head lice, maybe though this is a reference to 'nitpicking' which refers to fussy or pedantic fault-finding - if that is the case and my posts have indeed been fussy and pedantic fault finding you won't have trouble demonstrating that I am sure. The truth is, there is no need to be pedantic, one could drive a truck through the gaps in your thinking as demonstrated on this thread. You have made many bold assertions in this thread and you haven't backed up a single one with any evidence.

A 'buy the book' is a classic cop out!

So once again, thanks for making my task so easy.