Results 1 - 3 of 3
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Who are the "sons of God" in Genesis 6? | Gen 6:2 | hopalong | 189152 | ||
Friend... The synopsis of Genesis chapter 6, is that the Sons of God took the daughters of men to wife. They were believers who disobeyed God and went after the unsaved women who looked good, and in turn they brought forth unsaved seed who corrupted the earth so that there was nothing but evil continually. And God saw what they had done and sent the flood to wipe out the wickedness. And all perished except Noah and His. let that be a lesson to all of us. We must not be unequally yoked with an unbeliever, for that will cause terrible repercussions down the road. Unfortunately, this is "Exactly" what is happening today. Not only with believers going after, and marrying unbelievers literally, but also spiritually as the church is unequally yoking themselves with unbelievers. They are making all kinds of excuses for their actions, and they just don't realize what this error will bring upon the Church. Just as it did when Israel went after the women and men of the heathen nations around her. These turned them to false Gods and abominations. Slowly but surely (like a creeping vine or spreading cancer) it became their destruction. I speak out about this, but somehow, this just doesn't seem important to the Church today. I sadly say, "we learn from history, ..that we do not learn from History." I know this is as it must be, but my earnest Prayer is that some (though few that must be), will by Grace of God begin to learn from History. ..Bible History. Peace,(Tony Warren) I agree with tony Warrens conclusion for the following reason: it is based on Scipture alone. Let the Bible interpret the Bible. Throughout the old and new Testaments "sons of God is" are believers! |
||||||
2 | Who are the "sons of God" in Genesis 6? | Gen 6:2 | InGodITrust | 189174 | ||
Hopalong, As I indicated earlier, here is the traditional position on the matter: "Who were the sons of God and daughters of men in Genesis 6:1-4?” Answer: Genesis 6:1-4 tells us, "When men began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. Then the LORD said, "My Spirit will not contend with man forever, for he is mortal; his days will be a hundred and twenty years." The Nephilim were on the earth in those days and also afterward when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown." There have been several suggestions as to who the sons of God were, and why the children they had with daughters of men grew into a race of giants (that is what the word Nephilim seems to indicate). The three primary views on the identity of the "sons of God" are that (1) they were fallen angels, or (2) they were powerful human rulers, or (3) they were godly descendants of Seth intermarrying with wicked descendants of Cain. Giving weight to (1) is the fact that in the Old Testament the phrase "sons of God" always refers to angels (Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7). A potential problem with (1) is the fact that Matthew 22:30 indicates that angels do not marry. The Bible gives us no reason to believe that angels have a gender, or are able to reproduce. Views (2) and (3) do not have this problem. The weakness of views (2) and (3) is that ordinary human males marrying ordinary human females does not account for why the offspring were "giants" or "heroes of old, men of renown." Further, why would God decide to bring the Flood on the earth (Genesis 6:5-7) when God had never forbidden powerful human males or descendants of Seth to marry ordinary human females or descendants of Cain. The oncoming judgment of Genesis 6:5-7 is linked to what took place in Genesis 6:1-4. Only the obscene, perverse marriage of fallen angels with human females would seem to justify such a harsh judgment. The weakness of view (1) is that Matthew 22:30 declares, “At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.” However, this weakness can be overcome by noting that the text does not say “angels are not able to marry.” Rather, it indicates only that angels do not marry. Secondly, Matthew 22:30 is referring to the “angels in heaven.” It is not referring to fallen angels, who do not care about God’s created order and actively seek ways to disrupt God’s plan. The fact that God’s holy angels do not marry or engage in sexual relations does not mean the same is true of Satan and his demons. View (1) is the most likely position. Yes, it is an interesting “contradiction” to say that angels are sexless and then to say that the “sons of God” were fallen angels who procreated with human females. However, while angels are spiritual beings (Hebrews 1:14), they can appear in human, physical form (Mark 16:5). The men of Sodom and Gomorrah wanted to have sex with the two angels who were with Lot (Genesis 19:1-5). It is plausible that angels are capable of taking on human form, even to the point of replicating human sexuality and possibly even reproduction. Why do the fallen angels not do this more often? It seems that God imprisoned the fallen angels who committed this evil sin, so that the other fallen angels would not do the same (as described in Jude 6). Earlier Hebrew interpreters, apocryphal, and pseudopigriphal writings are unanimous in holding to the view that fallen angels are the "sons of God" mentioned in Genesis 6:1-4. This by no means closes the debate. However, the view that Genesis 6:1-4 involves fallen angels mating with human females has a strong contextual, grammatical, and historical basis. I rest my case, although it probibly won't sit still! InGodITrust |
||||||
3 | Who are the "sons of God" in Genesis 6? | Gen 6:2 | Searcher56 | 189201 | ||
InGodITrust - Plesae cite your source. Is yours http://www.gotquestions.org/sons-of-God.html Just give a synoposis of your source, cite it and if we are interested we can read it, for two reasons: 1-It takes up less space on the server 2-I doubt you can defend the whole citation Searcher PS I really don't care what the tradition view is, even if it is a pluarity view. |
||||||