Results 1 - 7 of 7
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | The Sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4 | Genesis | Jesusman | 26385 | ||
First, I'm not going to quote the verses. I will provide the references so that you may follow along in your own Bible. I'll be utilizing the NASB translation. Genesis 6:1-4 let's get into the heart of the matter. Namely, who are the "sons of God." They are not angels, nor spirit beings possessing the human bodies. Turn to Hebrews chapter 1. This chapter gives one of the best and most important speaches about angels. Amazingly, I have never heard anyone refer to this passage when talking about the "Sons of God' being angels. Notice in verse 4, angels come into the picture. The writer begins by talking about God sending Jesus, then shifts to angels. in verse 5, The writer asks if God ever claimed the angels as his sons. he is asking these questions in a manner in which the answer is obvious. No! As he continues to compair Jesus to angels, he says, that angels are servants, ministers, have no power or authority over Jesus and mankind, and have no bodies. In verse 14, he says that angels are spirits, sent out to render service to the ones inheriting salvation. This passage removes the possibility of angels taking human form to mate with humans. Now, turn to Matthew 22:23-33. This is one of the tests put to Jesus by the Sadducees. This time, they ask Jesus about a woman who has had seven husbands. When she dies, to which brother will she be wife of in heaven? Jesus then answers there is no marriage nor the giving of marriage in heaven. They will be as the angels are. Basically that angels never marry nor are given in marriage. Therefore, angels did not come to earth and mate with humans. let's take a look at Job 1:6; and 2:1, both refer to the "sons of God" gathering themselves before God. Satan comes among them and the subject turns to Job. Now, because Job immediately becomes the topic of the discussion. This leads me to think that the "sons of God" in these passages aren't angel. I think that it is in reference to the descendants of Seth. What does nearly every Christian in todays world do on Sundays or Saturdays? Worship God. Because the "Sons of God" are mentioned twice as gathering before God, this leads me to think that it was a regular occurrance, and a time of worship. Turn to Genesis 4. What are Cain and Abel doing? They are making offerings to the Lord. The tone and language is such that God is there before them. So. in Job, it is reasonable and likely that the "Sons of God" are those of the line of Seth. Concidering that Job was believed to have been written during the time before Noah just strengthens my thoughts. Jude 6-7 is often quoted for supporting the notion that Angels came to earth and married humans. The only part of Jude that is referring to angels is Jude 6. Jude 7 is talking about those who he referenced in the earlier parts of the chapter, and starts a whole new context. The context isn't angels, but those who have defied the Lord and revolted against him. The only reference to angels is where they left their natural domain. Upon leaving, God chained them in darkness to be kept there until the day of Judgement. Therefore, they aren't a factor. There isn't support for angels marrying humans. Therefore, with no scriptural backing, I reject the idea that angels are the "Sons of God" in Genesis 6. So, who are they. The decendants of Seth. Also, the "sons of God" carries a meaning of a person who is obedient to the will of God. Before I continue with this thought, it is pertanent to remind you that the Bible ultimately points to Jesus. In fact, all of creation points to Jesus Christ. Jesus is the focus point of the universe. With that said, it is little wonder that Jesus is called the "Son of God". Demons, Satan, Peter, and many others called him that. Jesus even made the claim. It is my belief that the Genesis 6:1-4 passage of the "Sons of God" is a prophecy. it is prophecying that the Messiah, called "The Son of God", will come from the lineage of Seth. In Luke 3:23-38, it shows that Jesus came from the line of Seth. Also, It is prophecying the coming church. Turn to Romans 8. Beginning in Romans 8:12, notice what Paul says about the "Sons of God". He says, in verse 14, that those who are lead by the Holy Spirit are the Sons of God. Then in verses 15-16 that we are the children of God, adopted through the Holy Spirit. Look at 1 John 3:1-12. Here John begins with the same declaration that Paul stated in Romans. "We are the Children of God." In fact, all through out the New Testament, we are called this. It is my belief that Genesis 6:1-4 points to us as well as the Christ. In a sense, we, through adoption, carry on the lineage of Seth and Jesus Christ. I do appologize for the length. Jesusman |
||||||
2 | The Sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4 | Genesis | Jesusman | 31902 | ||
Hello All, Well, folks. I'm closing this thread. You can continue to discuss it if you wish, just don't expect me to reply. I have presented my interpretation, and have given support for it. Lately, I have been doing nothing but repeating myself. Also, many of the other interpretations are just getting more outrageous. On top of that, I think this has gone on long enough. Jesus Loves You! Jesusman |
||||||
3 | The Sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4 | Genesis | The Disciple | 32103 | ||
Jesusman, I found some of your posts to be insightful, but not to the point of changing my position. No compelling evidence of Cain's line being that which is discussed. Contrivance to the Cain lineage isnt emphatic. Contrivance for the "angels" bent isnt emphatic either.(But more compelling than the Cain theory.) The "angel" theory helps with a few Hard to Reason - verses - as seen in Job, 2Pet, Jude etc. How does it help???? Well, It would answer my question I had about Gen6:4, "...in those days, and also afterward..." How could the line of Cain continue "afterward"? Or is "afterward" not a reference to the Wrath coming?? (Flood) The Sons of God being angels could return "afterward", they werent destroyed. Job 1, The worship/church meetings you suggest arent compelling either. The paragraphs designate references of time and of an occurance related only by WHOM it was about. (JOB) You never mentioned my reference to Satan answering the Lord from where he came... If he came FROM the earth...did he now come TO the earth "to present himself to the Lord"? I apologize if I havent read ALL of your posts on this subject in other areas of the Forum, but I have yet to hear your view on these few I have stated. Titus 1:9, "holding fast the faithful word as he has been taught, that he may be able, by sound doctrine, both to exhort and CONVINCE (convict) those who contradict." If we aspire to be elders, then let us continue?? *shalom* the Disciple |
||||||
4 | The Sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4 | Genesis | Jesusman | 32107 | ||
Hello, What is so difficult to understand about Job, 2 Peter, and Jude? All 2 Peter says is that the angels left their natural dwelling. From other places in Scripture, we know that some of the angels left with Satan when he rebelled against God. The Passage in 2 Peter elludes to nothing about Angels marrying humans. As for Jude, I have provided an analysis of the Greek language in Jude. It clearly says that the angels left their dwelling, confirming 2 Peter, and that the cities followed in the sexual immorality actions that Sodom and Gamorrah acted. To say that it says that the angels were sexually immoral would disrupt the context of the passage and go against the standard rules of Greek grammer. As for Job, it's largely a toss up. It either says "sons of God" or "Angels of God", depending upon which early manuscript is referred to. It doesn't say both. As for Genesis 6:4 and the phrase "in those days and also afterward...", I have explained this so many times, it isn't funny. This is in reference to the Niphillim. They existed up until the time when the sons and daughters married each other, and they existed afterwards. Obviously they would have ceased to exist when the Flood came because the only land life to survive the Flood were those inside the Ark. Therefore, the Niphillim are given as a time reference only. This phrase is only limited to the Niphillim. It does not refer to the lines of Cain and Seth. True, I may not have responded to every point you have made. However, there is one question that I have asked time and time again, and no one has been able to answer it. "WHERE DOES IT CLEARLY SAY IN THE BIBLE THAT THE ANGELS ARE THE SONS OF GOD?" I have asked this question over and over, and no one has been able to give a reference. I'll tell you why. Because the Bible never makes the claim that angels are the sons of God. In fact, it refutes the notion in Hebrews 1:5. That little fact alone blows a giant gaping hole the size of Texas right into the middle of the angel idea of Genesis 6:1-4. The only "groups" identified as "The Sons of God" are Jesus Christ himself, and human believers, such as Christians and Israel. No other group is ever identified as being "the Sons of God" The only explaination that fits in Genesis 6:1-4 is that the lines of Seth and Cain ultimately married into each other. Jesus Loves You! Jesusman |
||||||
5 | The Sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4 | Genesis | The Disciple | 32143 | ||
Jesusman, Like I said before. You havent explained the line of Cain and Seth theory. You have stated, that the "sons" are not angels. Tell me the verse (Gen6:4) isnt saying... "In those days were the nephilim, and also afterwrd.." How were these Nephilim brought about? "when the sons of God and the daughters of men..bore children." So is this not saying, the nephilim came into being because of this union? If so, then the reference of the nephilim being there in those days and also afterward of the flood could not have transpired since Cains lineage passed on with the water. Myself and some others in here, we see this verse meaning the giants were before and after the flood. I cannot believe the fathers of these translated versions were so far off in the greek grammer as to not state what is and not what isnt. In a post I wrote this: Dare we read Jude 1:6,7 again? v6- "And the angels who did not keep their proper domain, but left their own abode, He has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of the great day;" v7- "as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vegence of eternal fire." Lets dig now and see what could be AN answer (not The) to the issue at hand. 6a- "And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation,..." "estate" - Pg 207 Notes (5) In Jude 6 'arche', (is defined) principality, Revised Version and KJV 'principality' According to Vines: Pg 488 Last paragraph (arche), In Jude 6, RV, it signifies, not the first estate of fallen angels (as KJV), but their authoritative power, "their own" indicating that which had been assigned to them by God, which they left, aspiring to prohibited conditions. See: Begin. Pg 58 B.Noun - Begin(arche) is defined as a verb - "to be first" 6b- "but left their own habitation,..." "habitation" Vines Dict: Pg 286 1. oiketerion, is used in Jude 6, of the heavenly region appointed by God as the dwelling place of the angels. Would this be a safe variation of v6 ? "And the angels who voluntarily decided to dismiss their authoritative position assigned by God, knowing full well of the prohibitive conditions. They left their dwelling place (heaven). He(God) had these angels reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day." v7 - "Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner,..." KJV "as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them IN A SIMILAR MANNER TO THESE..." NKJV In the NKJV vs6 ends with a semi-colon (;) and verse 7 begins, "as". A semi-colon tells us, co-ordinate clauses having a relationship in meaning not explicity stated are being seperated. I guess you can say, what was just stated is being defined a little bit better. Here in the Bible the writer is using S and G as a point of reference to what was just stated. In the KJV v7 starts out, "Even as" "As" simply defined. Same, just like. so vs7 tells us... "Just like S/G and the cities around them IN LIKE MANNER(KJV)...IN A SIMILAR MANNER TO THESE(NKJV)..." In the New American Standard Bible (NASB), vs7 reads, "Just as S/G and the cities around them, since they as in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example, in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire." What may we see is being stated here? Did the angels in vs 6 knowing full well the outcome of their exploits leave their original place of authority and their home to partake of the flesh? Or have I "read into" the definitions as laid out by my Vine's Dictionary? In all the versions I have at my disposal(8) the cross references to vs 6 are all the same. 2Pet2:4 1Tim5:21 Job 1:6 Gen3:24 Your response was solely saying I am not in left field. But you never really addressed how the Vines defines these verses. Truly I am not trying to beat a dead horse. For me and some others, until we are compelled otherwise...the horse is still alive and so is the salmon still swimming upstream. It would seem your horse and salmon is dead. Which is too bad. I refer back to Titus 1:9 again for you. Should we STOP ?? *shalom* the Disciple |
||||||
6 | The Sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4 | Genesis | Jesusman | 32218 | ||
Hello, I have given proof that angels cannot be the "Sons of God" in Genesis 6. Therefore, the only explaination left is that it must be referring to the lines of Seth and Cain. What else can it be? Space Aliens from another galaxy? Jesusman |
||||||
7 | The Sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4 | Genesis | The Disciple | 32329 | ||
Jesusman, Space aliens from another galaxy....well...thats quite a statement. You may not be too far off with that. Your proof that the sons of God cant be angels doesnt correspond with the Vines dicitonary as I read it.... So much for compelling..?? And you say, "Therefore, the ONLY explanation left is that it MUST be referring to the lines of Seth and Cain." Truly this is a definition of scripture based on silence. Is it not? Please tell me...the Nephilim is not being presented as the offspring of this Union of Sons and Daughters. And Please tell me...this offspring is not what is being discussed as being there before and after the flood. And if you tell me these things...compel me with reasonable scripture to say this is not what happened. But do not compel me by stating your view is EMPHATICALLY the correct view. WE BOTH could be so far off ... since we see dimly in a mirror right now. *SHALOM* D |
||||||