 |
| 
Reader
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2005
Total Posts : 66
| Posted 5/4/2005 8:21 AM (GMT -6) |   | Rev 14
Then another angel, a third one, followed them, saying with a loud voice, “If anyone worships the beast and his image, and receives a mark on his forehead or on his hand, he also will drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is mixed in full strength in the cup of His anger; and he will be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. “And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever; they have no rest day and night, those who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name.”
I have another weird idea that involves Genesis 6 and the sin of the sons of God. We are told in Jude that there are fallen angels kept in the abyss for judgment. There seems to be a possibility that these are the same angles we see in Genesis 6. In Rev 9 there are nasty beings that come out of this same Abyss to afflict the earth and "sting" men. What if the "mark of the beast" and "taking his name" was something more genetic and not a barcode or credit card implated on our forehead or wrist (which we hear of all the time). What if the mark of the beast was some kind of genetic corruption similar to what happened in Genesis 6 that really and truly corrupted all mankind. The sins of the sons of God in Genesis resulted in the destruction of the whole world by flood. None repented and only Noah and his family were saved. In Revelation, perhaps the mark of the beast has some corrupting quality such that men CANNOT repent after receiving it. Thus, the decision was cast in receiving the mark so there is no longer any decision possible when God pours out His wrath. Man becomes an infected race. Think of it as some genetic engineering stuff that infects a person and places them past repentance. Ultimately, in Revelation, there are only two groups and they seem polarized past repenting.
This kind of scenario seems much more logical than somebody barcoding my wrist so that I could shop at Cub Foods. If I repented I would simply cut off my hand or carve off my forehead.
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
Nathan Straub
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2005
Total Posts : 50
| Posted 5/6/2005 12:07 AM (GMT -6) | | Yes, if you repented. But consider the possibility that yo don't want to repent -- and neither do 5 billion others? They were absolutely set in their ways. We cannot repent anyway, apart from God's grace. It seems here, that God simply withdrew his grace from the doomed.
1. Genes, as far as I remember from biology, cannot be changed once you are conceived.
2. Your "genetic" theory gives too much leeway to materialism, the view that the soul is just an abstraction of a wholly material body, or the synaptical workings of the physical brain. Also, for there to be willful sin, it must be willed from the heart. In my opinion, a mentally ill person is not fully responsible for those things where he doesn't will from his heart, or doesn't know what he is doing. Jesus said, it is from the heart that a man is defiled. Criminal law agrees with this.
Also, please explain from the text of Genesis 6 where you get this genetic corruption. The only genetic corruption I know of is Original Sin... 8) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 5/6/2005 9:53 AM (GMT -6) | |
Laika said...<!--StartFragment --> Ha ha ha ha, good one, "Original Sin".
Jesus, being fully human, would have had that "genetic corruption" as well, then.
And with the completion of the project to map the human genome, they'll be able to find it, right?
I don’t see any original sin, Professor. But, I have seen human decay and the degenerative process, believed due to the fall. And I have the pictures to prove it!
Original Degenerative Sin
Original Decay
Post Edited (sparknheart) : 5/6/2005 10:11:23 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 5/6/2005 10:33 AM (GMT -6) | | |
Jesus came in the flesh and yet never chose to sin, hence simply being born doesn't make one a sinner. You actually have to carry out the action to sin to be called a sinner (one who sins).
Just as being born of two pilots doesn't make someone a pilot.
Are lots of people using the Latin Vulgate version of the bible?
 | | Back to Top | | |
|
Reader
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2005
Total Posts : 66
| Posted 5/6/2005 10:56 AM (GMT -6) | | Laika still loves me...
I am not discussing in this post whatever possible genetic corruption may have happened to Adam at the fall. Whatever happened, God offered to Adam and his seed the promise of salvation and the capacity to repent (regardless of whose will is necessary for that to happen). In this thread I am looking at the sin of the sons of god in Gen 6 as something different and beyond salvation. I believe that the sin of the sons of God consists of fallen angels copulating with women and giving birth to a race of half-breeds that are no longer truly mankind. These beings are genetically corrupted and God has not offered them salvation anymore than He has offered fallen angels salvation. The only thing that awaits them is the lake of fire that God prepared for the devil and his angels.
I believe that the beings that resulted from this angel/human interaction could not repent and are always and only damned. What I meant by my original post is that perhaps there is some kind of similar genetic corruption at the end that makes mankind no longer mankind. One could think of the concept using genetic manipulation to make a sphinx. Would this sphinx be "man" and the seed of Adam? Would this "being" simply be some kind of beast? If this genetic corruption concept is true, then the other races of man, say Neanderthal, would not have been objects of the promise of God's salvation anymore than the angels are.
I know it is wierd, but it is weird in a different way than the standard original sin concept that we normally hear of. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 5/6/2005 10:56 AM (GMT -6) | |
Laika said...
Just as being born of two pilots doesn't make someone a pilot.
Good, it sounds like you would you reject Hitler’s (and Jimmy the Greek's) belief in genetically breeding a supreme race.  Post Edited (sparknheart) : 5/6/2005 10:59:07 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 5/6/2005 11:05 AM (GMT -6) | |
Reader said...
Laika still loves me...
I am not discussing in this post whatever possible genetic corruption may have happened to Adam at the fall. I know, I was commenting on the "original sin" thrown out by another participant. Why something not found anywhere in scripture is repeatedly brought up is beyond me.
I've read your thesis and really have no thoughts on it.
But I could throw something out, do the "mark of the beast" and the "mark of Cain" have anything in common? (And is mark-sparknpark a beast?)
That should keep you busy for a while.....
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 5/6/2005 11:08 AM (GMT -6) | |
Laika said...
But I could throw something out, do the "mark of the beast" and the "mark of Cain" have anything in common? (And is mark-sparknpark a beast?) Darn, you blew my cover!
P.S. if it helps, my wife says I'm an animal.  Post Edited (sparknheart) : 5/6/2005 11:11:26 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 5/6/2005 11:10 AM (GMT -6) | |
JEE said...
Interestingly, just this morning I was looking at Keil & Delitzch's commentary on Genesis 6, which seemed to me to make a very good argument that "sons of God" in Genesis 6 simply refers to godly men corrupting themselves (morally & spiritually) by marrying ungodly women, and that Noah was virtually the last one who was "perfect in all his generations" (i.e., uncorrupted morally).
But that wouldn't account for the giants and the Nephilim and Shaq would it?
You know, the big guys with twelve toes and twelve fingers, southerners........
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Reader
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2005
Total Posts : 66
| Posted 5/6/2005 11:22 AM (GMT -6) | | Laika: But I could throw something out, do the "mark of the beast" and the "mark of Cain" have anything in common?
I don't think that they do for several reasons.
The mark of Cain occured when God was ruling mankind directly. They had no king and God punished sins. The mark itself threatened God taking seven fold vengence. God marked Cain for protection against human vigilantes that wished to take revenge. I think that man at that time was ruled by spiritual beings. This government stopped after the flood when God established that man was to uphold the laws on other men.
The mark of the beast is a mark that people who worship the beast take on. It signifys the name of the beast, his nature. All who receive this mark are damned and not one of them repent.
The mark of Cain is put on by God and this is different with the mark of the beast. There is those who are sealed with the name of God in Revelation as the antithesis to the mark of the beast and his name.
Thus, to me these marks seem different and for different purposes. The one common element would be non-repentance, but this doesn't seem to be enough in light of the other considerations.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 5/6/2005 11:38 AM (GMT -6) | |
Reader said...
The mark of Cain occured when God was ruling mankind directly. They had no king and God punished sins. The mark itself threatened God taking seven fold vengence. God marked Cain for protection against human vigilantes that wished to take revenge. I think that man at that time was ruled by spiritual beings. This government stopped after the flood when God established that man was to uphold the laws on other men.
It seems odd that you don't think men governed themselves before the flood.
But the flood story does come early in Genesis and there isn't much to go on.
Notice how late in history Genesis 4 occurs, "22As for Zillah, she also gave birth to Tubal-cain, the forger of all implements of bronze and iron; and the sister of Tubal-cain was Naamah."
The bronze age and the iron age all in one!
Dun Aengus, iron-age fort:
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Reader
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2005
Total Posts : 66
| Posted 5/6/2005 12:00 PM (GMT -6) | | | I literal interpretation would lead to thoughts of an advanced early civilization because within one generation they had iron. The iron age didn't happen again until around the time of David. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 5/6/2005 12:04 PM (GMT -6) | |
Reader said...
I literal interpretation would lead to thoughts of an advanced early civilization because within one generation they had iron. The iron age didn't happen again until around the time of David. Oooooo, I did not notice that, good call. *Now* I'm intrigued.
Wait, that's seven generations from Adam.
So we have seven generations to get from stone-age through bronze-age to iron-age with a stop off for CorningWare.
Post Edited (Laika) : 5/6/2005 12:27:54 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Reader
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2005
Total Posts : 66
| Posted 5/6/2005 12:36 PM (GMT -6) | | | Sorry, I was sloppy. It was 7 generations with the sons of Lamech. He is thought of as the anti-enoch. He breaks the one man/one wife laws and is generally percived as an evil guy. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 5/6/2005 12:40 PM (GMT -6) | |
Reader said...
Sorry, I was sloppy. It was 7 generations with the sons of Lamech. He is thought of as the anti-enoch. He breaks the one man/one wife laws and is generally percived as an evil guy. I worked out the numbers once and Methuselah died the year of the flood. Most likely, in the flood.
 "Help! I'm 969 and I can't swim!"
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PhilTheThrill
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 95
| Posted 5/18/2005 1:56 PM (GMT -6) | | | Methuselah's name means "his death shall bring". It's thought that God decreed that Methuselah's death would initiate the flood, be the trigger of sorts. | | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 6:22 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|