Results 1 - 5 of 5
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | I would like an explination of Geneis 6. | Gen 6:1 | BornOne | 228421 | ||
This describes the breaking down of the godly line of Seth (Gen 4:26) and the ungodly line of Cain. Seth's line being referred to as the "sons of God" taking wives from Cain's line, being referred to as "daughters of men". Wickedness multiplied as a result and this brought on the judgement of the flood. But God chose Noah, who was "perfect in his generations" (Gen 6:8) i.e. pure parentage back to Seth and God used Noah to build the Ark, also an OT type of our salvation through Jesus Christ. | ||||||
2 | I would like an explination of Geneis 6. | Gen 6:1 | biblicalman | 228429 | ||
What has to be recognised is that there was no 'godly line of Seth'. Seth's descendants were as ungodly as Cain's. That is why thousands of them perished in the Flood and only one family survived. Some godly line lol. Why on earth should a line which was to be largely destroyed for sin be called 'sons of God'?And why should their subsequent offspring have been so unique as to be 'men of renown'? In fact of course many of Cain's descendants worshipped Elohim. Why were they then different? We cannot condemn them all because of the sin of Lamech and the folly of Cain. And what about the descendants of the other sons of Adam? Did they not worship YHWH also? And notice 6.1. 'Men (not Cainites) began to multiply on the face of the earth.' Why should that description be restricted to half the population? Why should it mean Cainites? Were the Sethites not men. And what about the children of all the other sons of Adam? They too were 'men'. And it was the daughters of these men in general who are referred to. Indeed the phrase the bene elohim (sons of God) was elsewhere only used in the Old Testament of angels (see Job 1-2). Thus sound exegesis demands that we see here the angels leaving their first estate (Jude 6). It explains why their offspring were so exceptional, and also why God had to take such drastic action. The only way to remove the effects of these unions was total destruction. Men had become possessed by evil beyond their understanding. |
||||||
3 | Gen 6: Schofield notes | Gen 6:1 | BornOne | 228432 | ||
Thank you for your thoughts. This may be a little doctrinally contentious so we may need to end agreeing to differ. I have some regard for the respected C.I.Schofield and his study of the KJV Bible and I tend to agree with his conclusions here: "Some hold that these sons of God were the angels which kept not their first estate (Jude 6). It is asserted that the title is in the OT exclusively used of angels. But this is an error (Isa 43:6). Angels are spoken of in a sexless way. No female angels are mentioned in scripture and we are expressly told that marriage is unknown among angels (Mat 22:30). The uniform Hebrew and Christian interpretation has been that verse 2 marks the breaking down of the separation between the godly line of Seth and the godless line of Cain, and so the failure of the testimony to Jehovah committed to the line of Seth (Gen 4:26). For apostasy there is no remedy but judgment (Isa 1:2-7, 24, 25; Heb 6:4-8; 10:26-31). Noah, "a preacher of righteousness" is given 120 yrs but he won no convert and the judgment predicted by his great grandfather fell (Jude 14, 15; Gen 7:11)." That is Schofield's note on the subject, I see no reason to differ with him. | ||||||
4 | Gen 6: Schofield notes | Gen 6:1 | DocTrinsograce | 228435 | ||
Was there a question? | ||||||
5 | Gen 6: Schofield notes | Gen 6:1 | BornOne | 228438 | ||
I guess not. Thanks.. I have the gist of this note button now. | ||||||