Talk:Territorial spirit

Deuteronomy 32:8 - "Sons of God" vs. "Sons of Adam (or Man)"

"Deuteronomy 32:8-9
In both the Septuagint and the Dead Sea Scrolls Deuteronomy 32:8-9 refers a time when God divided the nations of the earth among the "sons of God"..."

Most of the translations I've checked state "sons of Adam" or "sons of man". What reference did the writer use that stated "sons of God"? "Sons of Adam" would be human, while "sons of God" could refer to angels or these territorial spirits, so the meaning of this passage hinges on which phrase is correct. Vince66.210.33.200 17:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I'm the writer that included the Deut. 32:8-9 reference. Most widely available editions of the LXX are based on later manuscripts (sort of like LXX versions of the Textus Receptus) and most of these do indeed speak of "sons of Israel", and at times, "angles of God". But more recently compiled critical editions of the LXX (like the Gottingen Septuagint) prefer "sons of God" as the most ancient of the textual variants. The New International Version of the Bible indicates this in a footnote[1] while the English Standard Version places "Sons of God" in the body of the translation while relegating the "sons of Israel" variant to a footnote [2]. A good overview of the issue can be found at the following link: [3] Eugeneacurry 18:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Then it needs to be rewritten. If the vast majority of Biblical translations render it "sons of men" or similar phrases, the leap to angelic beings is too far to includ yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.206.112.92 (talk) 05:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

It is a cardinal tenet of textual criticism that the older reading is to be preferred over the more common text type. This can be seen in the shift away from the Byzantine text-type (which is by far the most ubiquitous), upon which the King James Version is based, to the Alexandrian text-type of the New Testament. The link provided above provides sufficient documentation of the superiority of the variant reading of Deut. 32:8-9 and so, without further documentary evidence, the reference shall remain in the article. Eugeneacurry 17:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Passing by five years later... It is an interesting concept... but... the context is in what immediate follows, "For the Lord's portion is his people, Jacob his allotted heritage." (ASV). The reference to the allotment to Jacob, clarifies any confusion as to the separation, being that it refers to men, not to angels. Otherwise, we would expect to read the name of the Archangel, Michael.

With reasonable certainty, the quote from the Song of Moses, then, is contextually unrelated to this subject.--cregil (talk) 18:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Territorial Lies:

This page is yet another example of false teachers distorting the Bible to serve their own purpose. In this case, the purpose is to inflate pockets and ego of C. Peter Wagner. None of the scriptures cited on this page refer to "territorial spirits". For example, Deuteronomy 32:8-9 is speaking about how the Angels of God divided up the land between the sons of Noah.

"When the Most High gave the nations their inheritance, when he divided all mankind" - Deuteronomy 32:8-9

According to the Book of the Division of Days (Jubilees) God set boundaries between them and bound the sons of Noah by an everlasting oath. Of the three sons of Noah, there were Shem, Ham, and Japheth. Shem (Origin of the word Semite) was portioned Asian (East Bank of Nile Delta to India, North to Turkey). Shem's son Arpachshad was portioned Israel; which is why this land was later inherited by Abraham (Great Great Grandson of Arpachshad). Unfortunately, Canaan (son of Ham) took possession of the land by essentially squatting on it. However, it was promised by God to Abraham and returned to his offspring in about 1440BCE. Japheth was portioned Europe (Greece to the Straight of Gibraltar/Gadir) and Ham was portioned Africa (West Bank of the Nile to Coast of West Africa). To this day, Egypt is known as the land of H-M. All of this can be found in the Book of the Division of Days (also known as Jubilees). Christians should be aware that the Book of the Division of Days (Jubilees), The Book of Enoch, The Book of the Upright (Jasher), and The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles (Didache) were a part of early Judeo-Christian tradition. Early Jews and Christians of the 1st and 2nd century read and quoted from these books. These books were part of their unofficial canon until the Roman Church banned them in the 4th century. And why did the Roman Church banned these books? Well, according to the Church Fathers they were banned because the the Jews had previously rejected them. So why did the Jews reject these books? The Jews rejected some of these books because the Christians were quoting from them. Specifically, the Book of Enoch contains a prophesy about the return of the Messiah in the seventh Jubilee (440BCE-50CE). All of this, is documented by the writings of the Church Fathers. That said, these books are unquestionably inspired and absolutely necessary to understand the Word of God. - ICarriere — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.168.88.87 (talk) 20:36, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Territorial Spirit‎

The article Territorial Spirit‎ has been proposed for deletion. The proposed-deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 06:12, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Notability of this article

User:‎ StAnselm,

Re: (cur | prev) 06:27, 25 July 2012‎ StAnselm (talk | contribs)‎ . . (8,239 bytes) (-308)‎ . . (Deprodded - this subject has lots and lots of articles in academic journals) (undo)

Are these where those academic journals came from: www.monstropedia.org? The Territorial Spirit#Bibliography use the same sources as that website. Where are the academic journals for this subject? Because none of these listed here are academic!   — Jasonasosa 07:45, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I looked it up on a theological database. Here are some of them:

• Stevens, David E. "Daniel 10 and the notion of territorial spirits" Bibliotheca Sacra, 157 (2000) p 410-431.
• Greenlee, David. "Territorial Spirits Reconsidered" Missiology, 22 no 4 (1994), p 507-514.
• Poythress, Vern S. "Territorial Spirits : Some Biblical Perspectives", Urban Mission, 13 (1995), p 37-49.
• DeBernardi, Jean. Spiritual warfare and territorial spirits: the globalization and localisation of a "practical theology" Religious Studies and Theology, 18.2 (1999), p 66-96.
• Moreau, A Scott. "Territorial spirits and world evangelisation: a biblical, historical and missiological critique of strategic level spiritual warfare", Evangelical Missions Quarterly, 35.3 (1999), p 354+.

StAnselm (talk) 08:08, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 08:16, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Merge

The Criticism section is a duplication of Spiritual warfare#Criticism.Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 13:37, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree: Merge. Hyper3 (talk) 15:23, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, I don't see how it is, but the merge tag has come and gone. StAnselm (talk) 20:37, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Guardian angel

The lead of the guardian angel article defines it as "an angel assigned to protect and guide a particular person or group." That would seem to encompass territorial spirits, and so a wikilink is appropriate here. I think it's fine to link there from "national angel" - otherwise, a "see also" link would be good. StAnselm (talk) 23:42, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Law of Attraction

The lede refers to the Law of Attraction but does not establish basis. Does it belong there? Kortoso (talk) 20:51, 19 June 2015 (UTC)