Faithofchristian
Well-Known Member
Hi FaithofChristian
I am trying to find some rational logic and coherence for your personal theory that the “man Gabriel” does not have gender.
In the opening Post, YOU offered multiple versions of Daniel 9:21 “"while I was still in prayer, Gabriel, the man I had seen in the earlier vision, came to me in swift flight about the time of the evening sacrifice" and demonstrated multiple versions of the scripture describe him as “the man”.
YOUR conclusion in YOUR opening post concludes “As I don't understand how many people can't accept it, The Angel Gabriel as being a Man.” (FaithofChristian in post #1)
Your new theory is : “Look Angels do not have genders.” (FaithofChristian post #99)
You then offered yet anotehr personal theory, saying “…angels do not have the male genital system to reproduce themselves. (FaithofChristian post #99)
I don’t see any rational logic behind these personal theories you offer us.
You first point out that the scripture refers to Gabriel as a “man”, then claim the “man Gabriel” doesn’t have a gender. You then offer another personal theory that “the man Gabriel” doesn’t have male genitalia.
Why do you conclude that “the man Gabriel” is not male?
Why do you conclude that ‘the man Gabriel” has no male genitalia?
Your first personal theory that a “the man Gabriel” of Daniel 9:21 has no gender when both the Greek and the Hebrew words in the text use the male gender (“man”) seems to me to be irrational, illogical, and incoherent.
Your second personal theory, that “the man Gabriel” has no genitalia also seems to be an irrational, illogical and incoherent theory.
1) Can you describe the rationale, the logic, the data and how these create coherent theories?
2) I do not think your personal theories and interpretations are as logical, as rational and as coherent as the early Christian worldviews and their interpretations (e.g. your personal interpretation of Genesis 1:26 that we’ve already discussed). Why should your personal interpretation of scripture have priority over the interpretation of early Christianity?
In any case, I hope your spiritual journey in this life is wonderful and satisfying FaithofChristian.
Clear
ακδρτζω
Well your wrong that one first off.
As I don't have any Private Interpretation
As it is written in 2 Peter 1:20---"Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation"
Therefore my duty as a Christian is to stay within the guidelines of the bible/scriptures. Therefore I have no Private Interpretation of the bible/scriptures.
As everything is already written within the Bible/scriptures, that doesn't need any Interpretation.
That's why it's written in 2 Peter 1:20
"Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation"
So there's no Private interpretation or any Interpretations of the bible/scriptures