Angels Have Sex With Women According to the Bible
Angels have sex with women according to the Bible
Is there Sex in the Kingdom?
You will find Christians claiming that there is no sexual intercourse in their kingdom, and they cite as evidence for this the text found in the Gospels (Matthew 22:30) , (Mark 12:25) , (Luke 20:35, 36). This text is as follows:
[On the Day of Resurrection: they will neither marry nor be given in marriage, but will be like the angels of God and they will be the sons of God.]
But wait, this text☝️ does not deny the practice of sex in the kingdom, but rather this text proves that the kingdom of God is full of adultery and prostitution; because the text indicates that there is no marriage in the kingdom; and this means that sexual relations in the kingdom are through adultery and prostitution outside the framework of marriage.
Of course, a Christian will come to you and tell you that “those who enter the kingdom will be like angels, and angels do not have sex?!”
I respond to Christians and say:
Basically, according to the Bible, angels eat, drink, disobey, disbelieve, lie, and have illicit sex.
Here is the proof:
★In the Book of Genesis (Chapter 18) , we find that the angels came with the Lord to Abraham and ate beef, butter, and bread with him and drank milk.
★In the Book of Genesis, Chapter 19 , we find that the angels went to Lot and ate unleavened bread with him.
★In the book of Psalms 78:25 , we find that angels have bread.
So angels eat according to the Bible
-
Likewise, angels disobey and disbelieve, and therefore the angels fell with Satan, as the Epistle to Jude 1:6 says , as well as the Gospel of Matthew 25:41 .
-
Angels also lie, just as the angel Raphael lied in the Book of Tobit (Tobit 5:6, 7).
-
Angels can also touch the skin of any human being, as in (1 Kings 19:5, 7).
-
Likewise, angels have sex with women in illicit sexual intercourse, as mentioned in the Book of Genesis 6:1, 2, where the text says:
And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them, that the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
This previous text ☝️ indicates that the sons of God had sex with beautiful women, especially since the text says: [They chose for themselves from all that they chose] , and this indicates that the matter was chaotic and confused; each angel chose and slept with any woman outside of marriage.
The title “sons of God” here is a title for angels, as mentioned in (Job 1:6) , (Job 2:1) , (Job 38:7) , (Daniel 3:25, 28) .
When we refer to some versions of the Greek Septuagint, we find that the Greek text says:
The angels of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, so they took for themselves wives from all that they chose.
The Septuagint and the Coptic Translations Explicitly State that the Angels Took Beautiful Women for Themselves and They Gave Birth to Giants
When Christians fell into this calamity, they encoded the text, claiming that the title (sons of God) refers to (sons of Seth) , and they also claimed that the title (daughters of men) here refers to (daughters of Cain) !
I respond to this nonsense and say:
It was not mentioned in the Book of Genesis that the sons of God are (the sons of Seth) …so how do you claim that the sons of God here are the sons of Seth?!
Then Seth also had daughters according to (Genesis 5:7, 10, 13, 16, 19, 22, 26, 30) , so why did you give the title (daughters of men) to Cain’s daughters and not Seth!!!
The text is clear and explicit in that it speaks of two different beings; it speaks of the mixing of heavenly beings with human beings, but the sons of Seth and the daughters of Cain were both human beings, and thus it is impossible to interpret the text as meaning that the sons of Seth deviated with the daughters of Cain. Rather, the closest interpretation to the text is that the heavenly angels deviated and mixed with the daughters of humans in general, because both angels and human beings are different beings.
Some of the Marqa’i priests claimed that the sons of Seth were so righteous that they were called “sons of God” because of their righteousness!!!
I respond to this nonsense and say:
There is no evidence that the sons of Seth were righteous at all. The Bible never mentioned that the sons of Seth were righteous. Rather, the Bible only attributed righteousness to two: Enoch and Noah. As for Enoch, he walked with the Lord and the Lord took him to heaven, as in (Genesis 5:24) . This means that Enoch is not involved at all.
Moreover, according to Genesis 6 , the story of the sons of God’s deviant behavior with beautiful women occurred during the time of Noah, many years after the death of Enoch. Therefore, there were no known righteous people at that time other than Noah. So why do Christians claim that the sons of God are the sons of Seth?!
Some Marqa’i priests say that the sons of Seth were righteous, as evidenced by the fact that the Book of Genesis 4:26 says that they were preachers of the Lord:
And to Seth also a son was born, and he called his name Enosh. Then men began to call upon the name of the Lord.
I respond to this nonsense and say:
First: If we return to the Hebrew text, we will find that the sentence in Hebrew is ( אָ֣ז הוּחַ֔ל לִקְרֹ֖א) , and it is pronounced (az hohle lekro) , and no subject is mentioned in this Hebrew sentence. Rather, the Christian translators translate the text according to their mood and add the word (people), so the phrase becomes:
[People began to call on the name of the Lord . ]
So, when we review the Hebrew text, we find no subject in the sentence, nor do we know who began to call upon the name of the Lord at that time. Perhaps Cain’s descendants also began to call upon the name of the Lord.
Even if we assume that the phrase ” calls upon the name of the Lord” means naming the children with religious names, this does not mean that the sons of Seth were righteous, because naming a child with a religious name does not mean that he will be righteous. There are many corrupt children even though they have religious names. Then the sons of Cain were also named with religious names, so why did Christians not say that the sons of Cain were righteous?!
But if we assume that the phrase [calls upon the name of the Lord] means faith, supplication, and commanding good, then it is not reasonable to attribute this phrase to Seth and his sons, because after the birth of Enosh, Seth’s son, Enosh was still a young child, and there was only his father Seth, the only one. Therefore, it is not reasonable that Seth would begin to do good after the birth of his son!
Because why did Seth wait for the birth of his son to begin calling on the name of the Lord, and why did he not begin before the birth of his son?!
Does the time of righteousness have to start after you have children?!
It is also not reasonable that Enosh would call upon the name of God in his childhood!!!
Therefore, it is logical that Cain and his sons were the ones who began calling on the name of the Lord at that time, because they were present in large numbers, especially since the Bible alludes to Cain’s repentance in (Genesis 4:13) , and also the Lord’s prohibition of killing Cain in (Genesis 4:15).
Even if we assume that the phrase speaks only about the sons of Seth, this does not mean that they were righteous in the time of Noah, when the incident of mixing with beautiful women occurred, because there is a very large time gap between the birth of Enosh and the birth of Noah.
Then the Hebrew sentence contains the verb (hohel/ הוחל) which also means:
(defile) , (break a word) , (cancel or nullify) , (pierce) , (wound) , (pollute) and you can check dictionaries such as Strong’s Dictionary and others.
For example: This verb was used to mean “to defile a name” as in (Isaiah 48:11) , and the word was also used to mean “to defile” in (Exodus 20:25) and so on.
This means that this Hebrew sentence may mean that the birth of Seth’s sons led to the desecration, breaking, and violation of the calling in the name of the Lord.
So it cannot be proven that the sons of Seth were the only righteous ones.
Some Christian Marqa’ites, such as Dr. Ghali, claimed that: The sons of Seth were righteous because they had beautiful names, unlike the sons of Cain, who had strange names such as (Methuselah), which means [who is God], and Lamech, which means [strong]…
I respond to this nonsense and say:
First: There are common names between the sons of Cain and the sons of Seth, such as (Lamech) , but the charlatan Dr. Ghali has two faces; he admires the name Lamech , the grandson of Seth , but he denounces the name (Lamech), the grandson of Cain, even though they have the same name!
Then (Methuselah) means [man of God] , and this is a beautiful and good name👇
As for the rest of Cain’s sons and grandchildren, they are:
1Hanoch; meaning the beginning of wisdom.
2Yabal: meaning moving.
3Ayrad: meaning fast.
4Methuselah; meaning man of God.
These are ☝️beautiful names for Cain’s sons.
Even the name “Cain” itself is a beautiful name; it means “I have acquired a man from the Lord,” as mentioned in Genesis 4:1 .
As for the sons of Seth, some of their names were:
1Yard; meaning descent
2Methuselah; meaning the spearman, the man of arms, or the worshipper of the god Shelah.
If we talk about the name, the sons of Cain had some beautiful names, and on the other hand, the sons of Seth had some strange names.
So, the name is not evidence of the righteousness of Seth’s sons.
Dr. Ghali says that those who deviated after women were humans, not angels, and he cited the text (Genesis 6:7) , which states the following:
“Then the Lord said, ‘I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth—man, livestock, creeping things, and birds of the air—for it grieves me that I have made them.’”
I respond to this nonsense and say:
According to Dr. Ghali’s logic, those who deviated after women were also the animals and birds, because God also destroyed the animals and birds.
The fact that God destroyed man does not negate the fact that angels were the ones who deviated with women… God may punish one being and leave another. For example, God in the Holy Bible punished some humans immediately with death, but He left the demons without immediate punishment and gave them respite for punishment later. For example, in the New Testament, we find that there was a deceitful man and his wife who died immediately because they lied to Peter. But on the other hand, we find that some demons did not die according to the Gospels, but left and went their own way. It is not mentioned that Jesus killed and put to death all of these demons, knowing that demons are angels according to the Holy Bible.
Then the Holy Bible tells us that the Lord punished the angels who deviated with women in the Book of Genesis 6:2 as well. In the First Epistle of Peter 3 it is stated:
19 - In which he also went and preached to the spirits in prison,
20For you disobeyed long ago, when the longsuffering of God waited once in the days of Noah, while the ark was being built, in which few were saved.
This text ☝️
explicitly speaks about the spirits imprisoned since the days of Noah; that is, this text explicitly speaks about angels, because angels are spirits according to the Bible. And the angels have not yet died, but have remained imprisoned since the days of Noah.
Knowing that the letter of 1 Peter 3:19, 20 does not speak about the spirits of humans, because the principle of the Holy Book states that if a sinful human dies, he will enter torment and his chance for salvation and faith will be over, and preaching will not benefit him at that time. But on the other hand, we find that Jesus in this text went to the spirits in prison to preach to them there, and this indicates that they are angels and not human spirits.
We also find in the Epistle of 2 Peter 2 the following:
4For if God did not spare the angels who sinned, but cast them down to hell in chains of darkness, and delivered them to be reserved for judgment,
5He did not have mercy on the old world, but rather he preserved Noah as the eighth, a preacher of righteousness, as he brought a flood upon the world of the wicked.
Here ☝️, the Holy Bible explicitly mentions angels in the context of the story of Noah’s Flood and the destruction of the world.
It was also mentioned in the Epistle to Jude 1:6 as follows:
“And the angels who did not keep their own principality, but left their own habitation, he has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of the great day.”
Dr. Ghali Al-Dajjal quoted two texts from the Old Testament, claiming that the title “sons of God” in them refers to righteous humans. These two texts are:
Psalm 89:6
“For who in heaven is equal to the Lord? Who among the sons of God is like the Lord?”
Psalm 29:1
“Ascribe to the Lord, O children of God, ascribe to the Lord glory and strength.”
I respond to this nonsense and say:
There is no definitive evidence that the title (sons of God) in the two previous psalms ☝️ refers to righteous humans. Rather, commentators differ on this, and there are those who said that the two previous texts refer to the angels themselves and not humans, and this is according to the Holy Bible Dictionary - page 109👇.
Therefore, it is not correct for Dr. Ghali to quote the text of these two psalms.
As for Dr. Ghali’s citation of the New Testament texts to indicate that the phrase “sons of God” may also be applied to righteous human beings… I respond to him and say:
So why was this rule not applied to Jesus, and why was Jesus considered a heavenly god just because he was called the Son of God?!
What is this contradiction in standards?!
As for some Marqa’i priests who claim that the early church fathers interpreted the text as the sons of Seth deviating from women…
So I respond to this nonsense and say:
The Church Fathers and saints of the first three centuries believed that the angels themselves had sex with women and became corrupted. For example, St. Justin, St. Irenaeus, Athenagoras, Tertullian, St. Clement of Alexandria, Commodianus, St. Methodius, Eusebius, Lactantius, St. Ambrose , and others all indicated that the angels had sex with women and gave birth to giants.
-
There are also writings attributed to Saint Clement of Rome , which say the same thing.
-
And many Jewish scholars said the same thing, such as Philo and Josephus .
But after the fourth century, the Romans and Greeks were very mocking of Christians regarding the adultery of angels with women; so some of the later fathers, such as Augustine and Athanasius, tried to go against church tradition in order to evade this scandal before their opponents.
★ Here Are the References that Prove that the Ancient Church Fathers Believed that Angels Had Sex with Women 👇
Now, let’s blow up some of the Christian apologists’ patchwork:
Dr. Ghali Al-Marqati claims the following:
The text explains that Cain’s sons began to multiply and had more daughters, or the reason for the large number of daughters may be that the sons were evil and constantly fought, so the proportion of daughters exceeded the proportion of sons.
The descendants of Seth continued to intermarry, producing sons and daughters, and did not fight, so the proportion remained equal. Unfortunately, some of Seth’s descendants began to desire Cain’s daughters, who had multiplied, as I explained previously. So they abandoned the daughters of Seth’s descendants and married the daughters of Cain, who were rejected for their evil.]
Here, the patchworker Ghali☝️ invented a story to suit his mood, so he claimed that the “daughters of the people” in the text are the daughters of Cain, even though the text did not mention Cain at all.
Dr. Ghali also claimed that the percentage of increase of Cain’s daughters was greater than the percentage of increase of Seth’s daughters, but there is no evidence for this at all. Rather, the text is talking about people in general.
Ghali also claimed that the sons of Cain were fighting over women, even though this was not mentioned in the text at all!
Ghali also claimed that the sons of Seth left the daughters of Seth and married the daughters of Cain, but there is no evidence for this and it was not mentioned in the text at all!
Likewise, it is claimed that Cain’s daughters were rejected because of their evil, and there is no evidence for this in the text at all.
I noticed that Dr. Ghali wanted to attribute the actions of Cain to all of his descendants, which is an injustice inherent in the corrupt doctrines of Christianity. The Holy Qur’an says:
“No soul shall bear the burden of another.” [An-Najm 38]
Dr. Ghali Al-Marqati says the following:
The Bible makes it clear that Seth’s daughters did not sin in the beginning, but rather his sons were the ones who sinned, so the sin was attributed to them. This is a testimony from the Bible to the daughters of Seth and an honor for them, contrary to what the skeptic wanted to suggest to us. The Bible, both Old and New Testaments, is full of honored women, prophetesses, judges, queens, and deaconesses, mentioned by name, contrary to the other thought that greatly degraded women and reduced them to mere objects of pleasure.
I respond to this ridiculous Christian and say:
You contradict yourself, as you claimed that the Bible honors women by mentioning them by name, but at the same time, the Bible did not mention the names of Seth’s daughters, but only the names of his sons. Likewise, the Bible did not mention that Seth’s daughters were righteous.
Then where is the Bible’s honoring of women? Did it honor them when it mentioned Jesus’ grandmothers by name and said that they were prostitutes?!
Did the Holy Bible honor the Virgin Mary when it mentioned her by name, but said that she was unclean, so I went and took my husband to a bath for the sake of the Mosaic law of purification?!
And does the Holy Bible not talk about sexual enjoyment of women when it wrote an entire sexual book called the Song of Songs? Rather, it mentioned the following in the Book of Proverbs 5:19 :
[Rejoice in the wife of your youth, the doe, the beloved, the sweetheart, so that her breasts may satisfy you at all times.]
As for beating women, the Bible commands beating others until the one being beaten suffers wounds (see Proverbs 20:30) .
Dr. Ghali Al-Marqati claimed that the Alexandrian and Coptic translations did not mention the phrase (angels of God)!!!
I respond to this liar and say:
The monk Father Epiphanius Al-Maqari himself confirms that the Alexandrian and Coptic translations contain the phrase (angels of God) 👇
- Also on Christian biblical studies websites you will find that they confirm that the Alexandrian manuscript mentioned the phrase (angels of God) .
The charlatan Ghali cited the Qumran manuscript and claimed that it contains the phrase (sons of God)!
I respond to this lying Christian and say:
The Qumran manuscripts (6Q1) did not originally include what was mentioned in Genesis 6:2 , but rather they begin at verse 13.
Here’s the proof for yourself 👇:
- Likewise, the lying Dr. Ghali claimed that the Septuagint manuscripts never mentioned the phrase “angels of God,” but rather “sons of God”!
But by referring to the books of Christian scholars, we will find that there are manuscripts that actually include the phrase (angels of God) …
For example, see this reference that contains the Septuagint translation👇:
This reference☝️ contains the phrase:
[ἰδόντες δὲ οἱ ἄγγελοι τοῦ θεοῦ]
The word ( ἄγγελοι) in this phrase☝️ is pronounced (angeli) ; meaning angels.
- Here is another proof that some versions of the Septuagint translation contain the phrase (angels of God)👇 .
And the strangest thing of all is that Ghali claimed that the Septuagint does not contain the phrase (angels of God) and he even denied everyone who says it exists. But a few lines later, I found Ghali contradicting himself and citing the words of his father, Father Tadros Yacoub Malti , knowing that Father Tadros also confirms that the Septuagint mentioned the phrase (angels/Angelos), and Saint Augustine also mentioned it …
Here are two screenshots from Dr. Ghaly’s website so you can see his inconsistency and contradiction for yourself👇
And so the charlatan Ghali kept cursing, insulting and accusing a Muslim of lying because this Muslim pointed out that the Septuagint mentioned the phrase (the angels of God) , but when Ghali was shocked that his father, Father Antonius Fikry , also confirmed that the Septuagint mentioned the phrase (the angels of God) , the filthy Ghali did not dare to insult his father, Father Antonius , but rather Ghali contented himself with saying the following:
[In truth, I cannot judge what Father Antonius said.]
Look at Ghali Al-Marqati and how he refused to deny or insult the fathers of his church, but at the same time he insulted the Muslim even though the Muslim mentioned the same words as the fathers of the church!!!
Ghali Al-Marqati also kept citing Aquila’s translation !
I reply to him and say:
The author of this translation is called Aquila , a Pontic Jew. He lived in the second century AD and wrote his translation in 126 AD. This man is different from Aquila, Paul’s friend.
Aquila hated Christians when they quoted texts from the Septuagint to attribute them to Jesus during their preaching. Therefore , the Jew Aquila retranslated the Old Testament again and rejected the Septuagint in order to hinder the preaching movement.
So, the real reason for putting Aquila’s translation in place is Aquila’s dislike of Christian quotations.
Therefore, the Septuagint remained the only translation adopted by ancient Christian churches, replacing Aquila’s translation. To the point that only a few scattered fragments of Aquila’s translation have survived. This is what Saint Augustine mentioned, and the Encyclopedia of the Bible quotes it. Here’s the proof for yourself:
Ghali the Antichrist tried to respond to what the Jesuit translation mentioned, as the Jesuit translation mentioned the following:
[The author returns to a popular legend about Titans who were said to have been born from a marriage between human beings and celestial beings… Later Judaism and almost all early Christian authors saw these (sons of God) as sinful angels, but the Church Fathers from the fourth century on interpreted the sons of God as the sons of Seth and the (daughters of men) as the daughters of Cain.]
The priests who wrote the Jesuit translation acknowledge that the author of Genesis indicates that heavenly angels had sex with earthly women, and the early Church Fathers held this belief until the fourth century AD.
But since the fourth century AD, the Church Fathers began to distort the Church tradition and evade this scandal.
Ghali Al-Marqati tried to distort the words of the Jesuit translation, as Ghali claimed that the translation talks about the Samaritans’ belief that angels had sex with women…
But this is a blatant lie from Ghali, because the Jesuit translation did not mention the Samaritans at all. Rather, the Jesuit translation speaks of the author of Genesis’ belief that angels had sex with women.
The Jesuit translation mentioned the word “author ,” meaning that it was talking about a single person who wrote the Book of Genesis. However, the Samaritans were not supposed to be the authors of the Book of Genesis, but rather merely copyists. In addition, the Samaritans were a group and not a single person.
If Gali claims that the word “author” refers to the Samaritans and not Moses, then by his own logic the Torah is not written by Moses, but rather by the Jews or Samaritans after him.
Here are the words of the Jesuit translation yourself 👇
Then, Ghali contradicts himself; he claims here that the Samaritans were the ones who said that angels had sex with women, and then a few lines later Ghali says that the Samaritans did not mention that angels had sex with women!!!
Ghali also claimed that the Jesuit translation took this information from Samaritan manuscripts, and this is a lie on his part. Rather, the Jesuits made this comment based on the Septuagint manuscripts themselves.
Then Dr. Ghali Al-Marqati resorted to distorting the words of Saint Augustine, where Ghali said the following:
[Saint Augustine speaks of a Septuagint version in the hands of pagans in which they changed some things, but the original Septuagint and Aquila’s translation, which is similar to the Septuagint, wrote “sons of the gods” or “God,” which means the descendants of Seth. This confirms that the correct opinion across generations of Jews and Christians is that the word “sons of God” is the descendants of Seth, but some versions in the hands of pagans changed it for their evil idea, which is the sons of angels.]
Here ☝️, the lying Dr. Ghali has distorted the words of St. Augustine. St. Augustine did not even speak about the Septuagint versions in the hands of pagans, nor did he touch on the pagans’ distortion of one of the Septuagint versions. Rather, all that Augustine mentioned was that there were many myths that appeared among the pagans, and these myths included some demons physically assaulting women. Father Tadros Yacoub quoted the words of St. Augustine, and did not mention anything about the pagans distorting one of the versions of the Septuagint.
But the lying Dr. Ghali always likes to invent illusions to patch up his beliefs.
Here Are the Words of Saint Augustine
Moreover, what Ghali the idiot says will distort the image of the Church Fathers themselves, because there are many manuscripts that mention the phrase “God’s angels,” such as the Alexandrian manuscript, as we mentioned before. The Alexandrian manuscript was preserved in the hands of Christians themselves, especially the patriarchs of the Church.
Will Ghali say that the Church Patriarchs also distorted the Septuagint and added the phrase “angels of God” to it?
Also, when we refer to the writings of the Jewish historian Josephus , we find him clearly confirming that angels had sex with women.
But Ghali Al-Marqati tried to evade this scandal, as Ghali claimed that the historian Josephus talks about the sons of Seth and describes them as angels!!!
I respond to this ridiculous patchwork and say:
When we read the context of Josephus’s words, we do not find him likening the sons of Seth to angels. Rather, all Josephus did was talk about the sons of Seth and then move on to talk about the angels and how the angels deviated with women.
The context of Josephus’s speech does not provide clear evidence that he likened the sons of Seth to angels.
To prove to you that the historian Josephus is talking about angels having sex with women, this historian mentioned that: The angels had sex with women and gave birth to giants, which is the same name the Greeks call them .
Indeed, the Greeks also believed that the celestial beings had intercourse with women and gave birth to giants, not to the sons of Seth.
- Therefore, scholars confirm that the historian Josephus believed that angels had sex with women. Here is the evidence for yourself 👇
By the way, the historian Josephus himself praised the Septuagint and considered it extremely accurate and beautiful, even though the impure Galli continued to curse the Septuagint!
- Look at what the historian Josephus says about the Septuagint 👇
And the unclean Ghali also distorted the Jewish interpretation of Rashi, where he claimed that this interpretation did not mention (the angels of God), but when you return to Rashi’s interpretation, you will find that he mentioned that there is an opinion that the angels of God deviated with women, and here is the interpretation for yourself👇:
As for the fact that Ghali continued to despise the Septuagint and consider it an inaccurate translation, I respond to him and say:
The New Testament writers quoted dozens of quotations from the Septuagint itself and sometimes even used Septuagint words without the Hebrew text.
Here’s the proof yourself 👇
So any challenge to the Septuagint translation will lead to doubt about the accuracy of the New Testament, but the donkey Gali has not understood that yet.
According to what the Christian researcher, Bishoy Fakhry, said on the Coptic Treasures website , Jesus and the writers of the New Testament were quoting from the Septuagint, and most of the Church Fathers were using the Greek Septuagint. Therefore, the clerical professor, Bishoy Fakhry , says :
Studies have proven that the New Testament contains 275 quotations from the Old Testament; 220 of them are from the Septuagint, including 106 quotations from the Apostle Paul. In the Epistle to the Hebrews, there are 28 quotations that are literally the same as the Septuagint.
Let’s take some simple examples of this:
1According to the Gospel of Matthew 21:16 , Jesus quoted a text from Psalms 8:2 where he said:
Jesus said to them, “Yes. Have you never read, ‘Out of the mouth of babes and infants you have prepared praise ’?”
Indeed, the Septuagint says this ☝️, but the Hebrew text says:
“Out of the mouth of babes and infants you have made strength, not praise. ”
So here the Gospel of Matthew rejected the words of the Hebrew text, but quoted from the Septuagint here.
Another example:
In Hebrews 11:21 , Paul quotes a text from the Septuagint from Genesis 47:31 as follows:
He prostrated on the head of his staff.
The Septuagint actually says that Jacob bowed down on the top of his staff.
But the Hebrew text says:
“He prostrated on the head of the bed, not the stick.”
The writers of the New Testament often relied on the words of the Septuagint and omitted the Hebrew words.
Christianity also took the order and names of the books from the Septuagint. Likewise, the Copts took the Katamaros and Agpeya, the texts of the biblical readings, from the Coptic translation, which was taken from the Septuagint.
The words of Professor Bishoy Fakhry are available on the Christian website (Coptic Treasures) , under the title [ The Septuagint Translation of the Old Testament - Professor Bishoy Fakhry]
The Septuagint was the translation used by ancient Christians, but when the Protestant movements and their translations emerged in our time, the rest of the Christians around the world began to follow the Protestants and be influenced by them.
By the way, the Septuagint is older than the Hebrew text that Christians now rely on. Christians now rely on manuscripts of the Masoretic Hebrew text, especially the Aleppo and Leningrad manuscripts, which date back to approximately the tenth century AD, that is, hundreds of years after the Septuagint.
The Septuagint is sometimes considered more accurate than the Masoretic Hebrew text that Christians rely on now. Here’s the proof for yourself 👇
Also, many early Christians believed that the Septuagint was divinely inspired. Strangely, however, the lying Dr. Ghali denied this, claiming that no one had ever said so!
I reply to the lying Ghali and say:
Let us take a few simple examples of how the Church Fathers revered the Septuagint as a revelation.
Saint Augustine says in his book (The City of God: Volume 3, Book 18, Chapter 42) the following:
“They succeeded in choosing their expressions so that the agreement between them was wonderful, wonderful, and truly divine, so that each of them completed that work alone, but there was no disagreement between them about the meaning or the value of the words and their arrangement. And since the interpreter appeared as one, the interpretation of all appeared unified; for the Holy Spirit is one in all, and they had received from God that wonderful gift; so that it takes the authority of the Holy Scriptures not as a human work but as a divine work. The Church received the translation of the Seventy as if it were alone. God showed his help towards them, so every interpreter is bound to agree with the Seventy; for the Holy Spirit was working in the prophets and is also with the interpreters of the translation of the Seventy. Rather, it is a divine authority that inspires and directs the interpreter’s work.”
★ Let us take another quote from the Christian Dr. Nagwa Ghazali , who is a professor of the Old Testament at the Anba Royes Theological College in Cairo, and the Bible Institute in Maadi.
Dr. Najwa says in her book (Lectures on the Old Testament, Part One, page 73) the following:
[The king who commissioned this noble work was guided by divine wisdom and forethought. The sheikhs who carried out this translation were under divine inspiration.]
Dr. Nagwa also pointed out that Jesus and the writers of the New Testament were quoting from the Septuagint, as the Septuagint was the Holy Bible at that time.
Ghali Al-Marqati says the following:
[Therefore, whoever clings to the words of the Septuagint translation does not understand anything about the types of translations and proves that his purpose is only deception.]
I reply to him and say:
So you are insulting the early Church Fathers because they received this translation as if it were the only one, as Saint Augustine said in our previous quote: ( The City of God: Volume 3, Book 18, Chapter 42).
Then, Ghali Al-Marqati considers the Greek Septuagint translation to be an inaccurate translation because it is not the original language of the Old Testament. So why does he cling to the New Testament and its Greek manuscripts even though Jesus was preaching among the Jews in a language other than Greek, according to the popular opinion among Christians?!
So who translated Jesus’ words in the Gospels from Aramaic to Greek, and would this translation be considered interpretive or literal?!
Among the funny things is that the patchworker called (Dr. Ghali) claims that the Samaritan Torah does not differ from the Hebrew Torah in the text (Genesis 6:2) !
But when we return to the Samaritan Torah, we find that the Samaritan Torah mentions the phrase “sons of the sultans ,” while the Hebrew Torah mentions the phrase “sons of God .” This indicates that corruption has occurred.
Ghali Al-Marqati tried to make light of this scandal in a strange and funny way, saying that ” this is not considered a distortion, but rather a mere difference in translation, because the Samaritans only separated the Hebrew word (Elohim) into two words in the phrase [ Bani Ha-Lheim], so its meaning became (sons of the sultans), while the Hebrews did not separate the word (Elohim), so the meaning of the phrase became (sons of God)!”
Frankly, I am surprised by this patchwork!
I swear to God, isn’t this a distortion?!
One of them separates the Hebrew word into two words, changing its meaning. The other leaves the word as it is, giving it a completely different meaning. In the end, Ghali Al-Marqati pretends that this is not a distortion!!
The strange thing is that Ghali contradicts himself as usual. Here he denies that the Samaritans distorted their Torah, but a few lines before that he said:
The Samaritan text differs from the Hebrew text in approximately six thousand places. For example, the Samaritan Torah replaced Ebal with Gerizim (Deuteronomy 27:4 and 8) to increase the veneration of their holy mountain. Most of these differences are attributed to errors in translation that occurred on the part of the copyists at the time of writing, or to deliberate errors that they made deliberately and persistently .
The funny thing is that Dr. Ghali kept reviewing some manuscripts, including the (Aleppo codex) , and he pronounced its name in Arabic as: (Aleppo) !!!
But this Christian donkey does not know that its name in Arabic is (Aleppo Manuscript) and not (Aleppo)!
This manuscript was written in the tenth century AD during the Abbasid Caliphate.
When Gali al-Marqa’ati spoke about the giants mentioned in Genesis 6:4 , he denied that they were very large in stature, and he kept babbling about the word ( Gibor) , but that fool forgot that the beginning of the line also speaks about other giants, and so the word (Nephilim) was mentioned , which means (giants) according to Strong’s Dictionary (h 5303) that this pedant has been annoying us with.
The word (Nephilim) was also mentioned in the book of Numbers 13:31, 32, 33 as follows:
And the men who went up with him said, “We cannot go up against the people, because they are too strong for us.” So they brought up a slander against the land they had spied among the Israelites, saying, “The land through which we went to spy out is a land that devours its inhabitants, and all the people we saw there are tall men. We also saw the Nephilim there , the descendants of the Anakites, and we were like locusts in our own eyes, and so we were in their eyes.”
According to this text ☝️, the Israeli spies encountered the Nephilim , the giant giants, to the point that the Israelites felt like small locusts compared to these giant giants.
The lying Gali also claimed that the height of the giants according to his book was only twice the height of a human being; that is, the height of a giant was only 3 meters. The lying Gali also claimed that the word in Aramaic means (double), and Gali quoted a quote from Brown’s dictionary , and this quote is as follows:
[ †נְפִלִים nmpl. giants, according to G γίγαντες, so SB; Revelation: Gen 6:4 (J) 13:33 (JE); G om. בְּנֵי וגו׳, and so on; these words perhaps doublet, but already in Sam., also B (etym. dub.; cf. Aramaic נִיפְלָא, נְפִיּלָא Orion; conject. v.]
I respond to this charlatan and say:
In the previous quote☝️, there is no indication that the height of the giants was only twice that of a human, but the dictionary says:
[Di; these words perhaps double]
★ The meaning of the previous phrase ☝️ is:
[These words may be double] ,
The dictionary here☝️ talks about the word being double in the way it is written, and therefore you will find the dictionary writing the word in two different ways:
Nefla
Nefila Nefila
What does this have to do with the weakness of human height, you lying Christian?!
As for the symbol (di) , it refers to an author named A. Dillmann.
As for the symbol (dub) , it symbolizes something questionable, not weakness.
If you yourself open the introduction to the dictionary, you will know what these symbols refer to.
Dr. Ghali does not understand Arabic, English, Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, or any other language. This creature reads but does not understand what he reads.
Then Ghali Al-Abit quoted a quote from Gesenius’ dictionary , and this quote is as follows:
[נָפִיל only in pl. נְפִילִים m. giants, Gen. 6:4; Nu. 13:33. The etymology of this word is uncertain. Some have compared noble, noble, which Gigg. and Cast. render, great, large in body; but this is incorrect; for it means, excellent, noble, skilful. I prefer with the Hebrew interpreters and Aqu. (ἐπιπίπτοντες) falling on, attacking, so that נָפִיל is of intransitive signification. Those who used to interpret the passage in Genesis of the fall of the angels, were accustomed to render נפילים fallers, rebels, apostates.]
The lying Ghali claimed that the previous quote means that those who interpreted the text to mean that fallen angels strayed after women were wrong!!!
But this is a lie from Dr. Ghali, as the quote did not say what the lying Ghali said, but rather the quote said the opposite of Ghali’s claim. The quote says:
[Those who interpreted the passage of the fall of the angels in Genesis used to consider the Nephilim as fallen, rebellious, and apostates.]
The strange thing is that Ghali Al-Dajjal linked the Hebrew word “Nefilim” with the Arabic word “Nafila” even though they are different from each other. The word “Nafila” in Arabic means a gift, a donation, a voluntary act, or something in addition to what is obligatory. So what does that have to do with the tyrants?!
Likewise, when Ghali Al-Marqati addressed the tyrants, he began to mock the story of Aad and Thamud in the Holy Qur’an, and he also mocked the height of Adam mentioned in the Sunnah of the Prophet, which is sixty cubits, or 27 and a half meters.
I respond to this stupid Christian and say:
First: The Holy Quran does not explicitly mention the height of the people of Aad and Thamud, but it seems that they were tall, perhaps 3 meters, 4 meters, 5 meters, or something else. So why does it mock them?!
The Holy Bible has spoken a lot about very tall giants. In the Book of Amos 2:9, 10, the following is mentioned:
“And I have destroyed before them the Amorite, whose height is like the height of a cedar, and he is strong like an oak.”
In the Holy Bible☝️, the height of the Amorites was like the height of a cedar tree, and the height of a cedar tree ranges between 30 and 45 meters.
- The giants were also mentioned in (Genesis 14:7) , (Numbers 13:29) , (Deuteronomy 2:10) , (Deuteronomy 2:21) , (Deuteronomy 9:2).
In Deuteronomy 3:11 , we find that Og, king of Bashan, was 9 cubits tall and 4 cubits wide; that is, his width was about 2 meters!
In the book of 1 Samuel 17:4, we find that Goliath’s height was 6 cubits and a span.
- In the book of 1 Chronicles 11:23 , we find that the height of the Egyptian was 5 cubits.
★ There are many foreign Christians who never denounced Adam’s height, because if the lifespan of humans before the flood reached hundreds of years according to the Bible, then it is obvious that they were giants as well, especially since excavations indicate that the rest of the creatures and even insects were huge.
Among the patches that Christians offer is that they say:
How can the nature of angels unite with the nature of women, giving birth to giants, even though angels and women are two different beings?!
I respond to this ridiculous patchwork and say:
O Christians, do you condemn the union of the nature of angels with the nature of women, while you believe that the nature of your God united with the human nature of Mary, and she gave birth to Jesus!!!
O Christians, you believe that the egg of the Virgin Mary was not fertilized by human sperm, but that the nature of God united with the nature of humanity and gave birth to Jesus, according to what you believe!!!
So why this contradiction in the minds of Christians!!!
There is another patch that Christians resorted to, where they claimed that what is meant by the word (Angelus) in the Septuagint translation is (messenger) , because the word (Angelus) could mean: angel or messenger…
I respond to this patchwork and say:
O Christians, if we assume that the word “Angelus” in the text means “messenger ,” then this means that the messengers of God in the Holy Bible were more and more wicked, and thus this exposes the Holy Bible and does not solve the problem.
Then the angels are also messengers of the Lord because the Lord sends them to his prophets, just as he sent the angel to Elijah.
Some Christian Marqa’iyya tried to encode the text, claiming that the word “Messengers of God” means humans who are charged with obeying God on Earth!
I respond to this patchwork and say:
So this means that we are all messengers of God, that I am a messenger of God, and that Cain and his sons are also messengers of God, because the Lord commanded us and charged us all with commands on earth. Therefore, this patchwork will expose the Holy Book even more and will not solve the problem.
Other Christians have claimed that the text (Genesis 6:2) may be talking about the sons of kings, sultans, and judges having sex with women!
I respond to this patchwork and say:
There is no evidence that people at that time had kings, presidents, and judges. Moreover, it is not reasonable for the Holy Book to mention the mixing of the sons of kings with women, but not the mixing of the kings themselves with women!!!
Then the angels are also sultans according to the Holy Book where it says:
Ephesians 3:10
“That now through the church the manifold wisdom of God might be made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places.”