Genesis 6 conspiracy

[jaybird88]

for those of us that believe Gen 6 is fallen angels and not men, why do you think the church changed this? This is one thing that Catholics and Protestants agree on. The story was changed in the 400s I think, up until that point no one questioned this passage, there was nothing controversial about it. But none the less the church changed it. And the church did give a response on why they changed it, the idea of angels and humans procreating was just not rational, therefore the passage must mean something else. I have always had a problem with this response, the bible is full of events that are not rational at all:

men walking on water
turning water into wine
the sun stopping for a day
talking snakes
the dead being brought back to life
dead bones bringing the dead back to life
and on and on, there are to many to count, the church doesnt have a problem with any of these, but angels and humans, We Will Have None Of That!!

sorry but im not buying that reason.


So what was the real reason the church didnt want people knowing this story?

 

[jaybird88]

this comment is for PJ and free when they see the thread, i forbid you guys from liking this thread, i want you both to get off your lazy @sses and write something. lets get this party started!

 

[patrick jane]

For various reasons the church wants to keep God hidden, His creation, His words and the spiritual realm, all hidden. I believe Genesis as it is written, not what any church says to believe. Good topic @jaybird88

 

[jaybird88]

For various reasons the church wants to keep God hidden, His creation, His words and the spiritual realm, all hidden. I believe Genesis as it is written, not what any church says to believe. Good topic @jaybird88[/U
[/QUOTE]

i think these guys may have infected our churches, and i dont mean Vaticano (not a Catholic conspiracy) i mean all churches from the Vatacan banking scandal to all the ken copelands.
i think this is the reason we dont see people walking on water today. it didnt take me long way back to wake up and think, why do we only read about walking on water and not experience it our self. i dont think Jesus was the kind of guy that would dangle a carrot, He wanted all of us to walk as He did.

 

[patrick jane]

i think these guys may have infected our churches, and i dont mean Vaticano (not a Catholic conspiracy) i mean all churches from the Vatacan banking scandal to all the ken copelands.
i think this is the reason we dont see people walking on water today. it didnt take me long way back to wake up and think, why do we only read about walking on water and not experience it our self. i dont think Jesus was the kind of guy that would dangle a carrot, He wanted all of us to walk as He did.

It's no secret that secret organizations exist. Beginning before the flood and somehow after the flood, occult knowledge and what we must describe as magic carried on after the flood, no doubt this knowledge of occult practices is passed down through the generations. Much of this is kept hidden and possibly orally taught and/or closely guarded texts.

The deception and plans to go against God and His creation goes back to satan's rebellion and the 1/3 of the angels made it their business to infect the world with evil and deception.

 

[EarlyActs]

for those of us that believe Gen 6 is fallen angels and not men, why do you think the church changed this? This is one thing that Catholics and Protestants agree on. The story was changed in the 400s I think, up until that point no one questioned this passage, there was nothing controversial about it. But none the less the church changed it. And the church did give a response on why they changed it, the idea of angels and humans procreating was just not rational, therefore the passage must mean something else. I have always had a problem with this response, the bible is full of events that are not rational at all:

men walking on water
turning water into wine
the sun stopping for a day
talking snakes
the dead being brought back to life
dead bones bringing the dead back to life
and on and on, there are to many to count, the church doesnt have a problem with any of these, but angels and humans, We Will Have None Of That!!

sorry but im not buying that reason.


So what was the real reason the church didnt want people knowing this story?

What was it about the 400s that called for a change?

 

[Mr E]

for those of us that believe Gen 6 is fallen angels and not men, why do you think the church changed this? This is one thing that Catholics and Protestants agree on. The story was changed in the 400s I think, up until that point no one questioned this passage, there was nothing controversial about it. But none the less the church changed it. And the church did give a response on why they changed it, the idea of angels and humans procreating was just not rational, therefore the passage must mean something else. I have always had a problem with this response, the bible is full of events that are not rational at all:

men walking on water
turning water into wine
the sun stopping for a day
talking snakes
the dead being brought back to life
dead bones bringing the dead back to life
and on and on, there are to many to count, the church doesnt have a problem with any of these, but angels and humans, We Will Have None Of That!!

sorry but im not buying that reason.


So what was the real reason the church didnt want people knowing this story?

Do you have a source you can point to for some context? Exactly what was 'changed' and by whom?

 

[jaybird88]

Do you have a source you can point to for some context? Exactly what was 'changed' and by whom?

i dont know if there is an official church document that specifically says the text was changed on this date by this person. i just know when you research the subject you find the angel view getting attacked around the 3-400s and that Augistine was a big proponent of the sethite view. its hard to find church sources on these things that far back, just as you cant find a source on when the trinity became a doctrine. here is someone that found the same as i did:

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

 

[jaybird88]

What was it about the 400s that called for a change?

i dont understand what your asking?

 

[Mr E]

i dont know if there is an official church document that specifically says the text was changed on this date by this person. i just know when you research the subject you find the angel view getting attacked around the 3-400s and that Augistine was a big proponent of the sethite view. its hard to find church sources on these things that far back, just as you cant find a source on when the trinity became a doctrine. here is someone that found the same as i did:

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

And the church did give a response on why they changed it,

How about a link to where the church provided their reasoning 'for changing' whatever it is you think they changed.

I'll read your article-- just trying to get a handle on exactly what it is you are suggesting. I know that 'angels' don't 'have sex' with humans, but my understanding has nothing to do with anything written or 'changed' by 'the church' in the 400's. I just know that angels don't have sex. That's entirely a human activity, not spiritual.

 

[jaybird88]

How about a link to where the church provided their reasoning 'for changing' whatever it is you think they changed.

I'll read your article-- just trying to get a handle on exactly what it is you are suggesting. I know that 'angels' don't 'have sex' with humans, but my understanding has nothing to do with anything written or 'changed' by 'the church' in the 400's. I just know that angels don't have sex. That's entirely a human activity, not spiritual.

you need to search sethite view origins.
humans are not the only beings on earth that have sex, i am pretty sure every living being in the physical world procreates. why would angels in this world be any different?

 

[EarlyActs]

Do you have a source you can point to for some context? Exactly what was 'changed' and by whom?

The issue is whether the 'sons of God' are human or supernatural. The language seems to favor the juxtaposition view: the Nephilim were on the earth in those days. And also afterward (after the Cataclysm?). And the sons of God took daughters of men, but in a way that was not favored by God. Yet the children of them seemed to be outstanding in accomplishments. Perhaps these children heroes, men of renown, were already fighting the Nephilim. But the net effect seems to be a degradation all around, and God gave a 120 year advance notice that he was pulling the plug.