Results 1 - 11 of 11
|
|
|||||
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 | The Disciple | 32142 | ||
Jesusman, Your Hebrews 1 take on angels and sons... The Lord is making reference to which of the angels has he called SON....not "a son". So does not your arguement become a moot point? the Disciple |
||||||
2 | The Sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4 | Genesis | Jesusman | 32221 | ||
Hello, No, it is not a moot point. In fact, it strenghtens my point. God has declared Jesus Christ to be his son, and has declared Human believers to be his sons. God has not declared angels to be his sons. Hebrews 1 says that. Again, the ball is in your court to provide a verse that says angels are called God's sons. Jesusman |
||||||
3 | The Sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4 | Genesis | The Disciple | 32330 | ||
Jesusman, In Hebrews...again, "For to which of the angels did He ever say: You are my Son, today I have begotten You." vs 5a "I will be to Him a Father, and He shall be to Me a Son." vs 5b Then, the rest of that CHAPTER continues to refer to JESUS....as HIS SON. I didnt even see where it says we are His sons. (But I do believe we are His sons, by the grafting into as a vine, and by inheritance, see Heb 2) The chapter itself in context declares Jesus Exalted above the angels. Then in Chapter 2, (cf. Ps 8:1-9) the Son was made lower than the angels.... So it doesnt strengthen your point. It acturally declares your point moot. I say moot, because, you state that Hebrews 1 is showing that we are sons of God like Jesus, when actually we arent. And NOR are the angels the SON of God. This is the context of the chapter...who the SON of God is....not who are the sons of God. And to answer your question about providing a verse to substantiate angels being sons OF God...not Gods SONS... I pointed out the angels being sons of God in JOB 1...but it seems your still on earth worshiping with Job in the presence of God and Satan happens to be there too.?? I truly would like to hear A response to what ive posted a few times about that.... If GOD is asking Satan "from where do you come?"..and Satan says, "from going to and fro FROM THE EARTH... and back and forth ON IT." Where are the sons of God and Satan with them presenting themselves to God ...AT ??? Did satan LEAVE earth to ... GO TO earth to present himself before the LORD? And your retort of the ball being in my court to provide a verse that says angels are called Gods sons...would be as bad as me saying the same of giving me a verse that says Cains lineage is the daughters of men. And I will say again, the BENT of the angels being sons of God is much more compelling and provocative ...and reasons with scripture on other angelic issues much more soundly ...then the line of Cain theory. BUT HEY....we are probably wrong about it. We only KNOW IN PART...so please let us not presume to be emphatic on issues based on what the WORD doesnt say emphatically. (yes, that was redundant..lol) *shalom* D |
||||||
4 | The Sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4 | Genesis | Jesusman | 32444 | ||
Hello, Do you honestly think that my only proof text for human believers being the "Sons of God" is Hebrews? Nope! Romans 8:12-17 and 1 John 3:1 both identifies Christians as God's Children. Hosea 1:10 has God saying that Israel are to be his sons. Hosea 11:1 says that this happened when Israel was still in slavery in egypt. Jesus says in Matthew 5:9 that the peacemakers will also be called the sons of God. All of these passages point to those humans who believed in and obeyed God. The same definition, someone who is obedient to God, can also be applied to Jesus Christ as the Son of God. The term "Sons of God" is one which carries the meaning of one who is obedient. The angels are forbidden to marry (Matthew 22:30). Whether or not they are capable is not of importance, they are not allowed to. Genesis 6:1-4 clearly identifies "Sons of God", a term carrying the meaning of obedience. If Genesis 6:1-4 is talking about angels, then there is a clear contradiction in meaning, for they would be in disobedience to God and not be "Sons of God", but "demons". As a result, they would've been identified as such. However, we find no such reference in Genesis 6:1-4. Therefore, the term "Sons of God" must represent a different group which is in obedience to God. The only other group that fits is the line of Seth. Jesusman |
||||||
5 | The Sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4 | Genesis | The Disciple | 32456 | ||
Jesusman, Please, do us both a favor. Read my posts to you as slow as I read yours. I take into account all I see you say. I try not to breeze through so I dont misquote you or not see what you are trying to say. Please give me that much respect. I stated in ( ) parenthesis that I agree that we are sons of God. So most of that post was wasted breath. But for the rest... Matt 22:30 being forbidden to marry...YES..agree. Hence, thier incarciration in tartarus??? Your statement: "Whether or not they are capable is not of importance, they are not allowed to." BUT IS THIS NOT THE FACTS WE ARE PROBING????? Whether they are capable or not?? Flesh and bone angels came to this earth several times over the years. They are still coming in the flesh and they will continue to come in the flesh till Jesus comes. (I dare you to ask why I stand so firm on that) They left thier "estate"...which is their principality...which would be their heavenly body of authority. Like us...we are SPIRIT with a shell (earthly body)our authoritative position here on earth. They disobeyed GOD by leaving this position and their "abode" (heaven?)...hence, the special place of treatment...again, tartarus? ONLY THESE ANGELS WERE PUT THERE - NO OTHERS. Yes....after their fall with satan. Yes, they could be known as demons...or as some others claim, DEMONS are different than those angels..but that is another dissertation, eh?? Your convolution of sons of God and Son of God is un-founded. Con-founded too, to say the least. But, you are making me DIG DEEPER....and I thank you for that. YET, I am still compelled to my stand. Nary, a teeter, either. *SHALOM* D |
||||||
6 | The Sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4 | Genesis | Jesusman | 32460 | ||
Hello D, Let's try something, an experiment if you will. Try to set aside the knowledge of Biblical texts, doctrine, greek and hebrew grammer, the mountains of reference materials and so forth. Read Genesis chapter 1 through to the end of chapter 10. Try to read it as though you are reading an article in the USA Today or the National Geographic. Read it as a reasoning, curious human would, expecting a concise and fluent article. After doing so, think to yourself if "angels" and "humans" fits best in Genesis 6:1-4 or if "the line of seth" and "the line of cain" fits best. What do you get? Jesusman |
||||||
7 | The Sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4 | Genesis | The Disciple | 32550 | ||
JMan....thats the whole thing. I didnt come to my conclusion by reading commentaries or from searching from dictionaries or from another mans viewpoint. I came to this conclusion on my own by reading the material found in my NKJV Bible I recieved in Dec '91. Looking at the words written in english and the punctuation used. I am not a grammatarian (?) but I do have a decent command of how to read punctuation. When I read...and re-read ...and re-read Gen 6 ...I concluded after cross referencing from using the words "sons of God" throughout scripture that this must be talking of an UN-natural being. And to my surprise after a few years of not looking into it ...but a friend asking me to help him study this chapter...we both used our limited sources. Namely, Strongs concordance..a.nd Vines dictionary. I was totally dumbfounded that my findings from years previous was supported to my conclusions. Then, I started seeing more and more from others commentaries and so on and so on.... Then, 3 yrs ago...I heard the line of Cain theories...WOW....HOW confused I became. But to this moment....I am still compelled to the angels theory. And since you brought up that type of reading....have you seen the thread in Acts 2:6??? I believe if one were to read from the book of Acts they too would conclude the way I did...ehehehehehe Please...check this verse out and its thread. Am looking forward to more correspondance with you... I truly am loving your thoughtful mind and heart. D |
||||||
8 | The Sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4 | Genesis | Jesusman | 32936 | ||
Hello, I understand your concerns. One reason why I haven't responded to the Vine's quote is mostly due to the lack of time. I am only using the internet during my work hours. Therefore, I only respond to things that don't require much research for me. Responding to the quote from Vine's would require more research than I am currently able. On top of that, I don't have a copy of Vine's handy at home either. It's locked up in storage. So, I've had to work with what I do have handy, which is my knowledge of the Greek and Hebrew languages. I have some references in those areas in a backpack sitting next to me. What I can say about Vine's is that it's a resource. Normally, he gives the information related to the topic and passage at hand, and allows the reader to develope his own conclusions. Now, I cannot deny that "niphillim" is related to "napel" in some form. However, there are other words which sound similar to "niphillim" which also have different meanings. I am currently researching those possibilities during my days off. As for the numerous resources, I have found that not all of them is totally correct. each resource has an error or two here or there. I have also noticed that many, even commentaries, will give the various views concerning a passage and leave the final decision up to the reader. My post just prior to this one was an attempt to get you, or everyone for that matter, to see the passage in it's context, and to see it from my point of view. I remember something one of my religion professors told me. "When you examine a passage, don't look at the passage alone, but read around it. Read the whole chapter that contains the passage. Then read the chapter before and chapter following. Then keep on expanding until you have included the whole book. Finally, sit down and read the whole book in one stance, without stopping, taking a break, or being interrupted. During this time, read it as though you would read a novel or the newspaper. Then you will have a full understanding of the context of the passage." That's what I was trying to do. You see, we cannot just look at just Genesis 6:1-4 by itself. We nee to look at Genesis 1-5, and Genesis 6:5 and on until the end of the Book. I realize that not every one has the same access to the same reference material. I think it's a shame. I'll look at the thread you listed. Jesus Loves You! Jesusman |
||||||
9 | The Sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4 | Genesis | The Disciple | 32946 | ||
Jesusman, Thank you for stating the same as myself..as per how to read the context. *SMILE* That is what I was trying to state also. Before I started studying the Bible with a Strongs, Vines, Commentaries, peridodicals, Greek/Hebrew Lexicons, etc., I totally read the Bible in the same manner your professor suggested. It was in that manner I came to the conclusions I now hold. Gen 1 is an overall view whereas, Gen 2 gives a little more clarity of what Chp 1 was saying. And so on thru the rest of Genesis. Which is why I asked the question: Is chapter 6 now starting to discuss the line of Cain? When in Chapter 4 Cain is decidedly cast off from the presence of the Lord. Then Chapter 5 discuuses one thing, the lineage of Adam. Mankind is discussed in a WHOLE like Genesis 1 discusses creation. Gen 2 breaks some things down for clarity just as Chapter 6 was/is trying to do. Then chapter 7 discusses the finality of mankind, save 8 people from the line of Seth. Since, chapter 6 says in "those days", I had to conclude the writer was speaking of what Chapter 5 was discussing. And that is specifically the lineage of Adam. (Cain is not included) HOW do we bring the line of Cain into this chapter now? Mankind is discussed. The mankind we learned about in the previous chapter. Cain is not included with story of mankind any longer. And in the same breath of that verse, (6:1) the writer says, "and also afterward", which has to be speaking of the impending wrath of mankind. You see, if the writer were speaking of mankind being born to mankind and not of the judgement then verse 4 would be redundant to the first 3 verses. Thereby, stating a confusion. When I say confusion, "sons of God" bearing children with the "daughters of men". Line of Seth bearing children with Line of Seth. The words, "and also afterward" bring some kind of provocativeness to the whole story. Until we have a greater command of what the writer was stating by these words, we ALL shall be less than informed of the totality of the story. 'But we all could be wrong about the whole thing' Blessings and Peace to you always, the Disciple |
||||||
10 | The Sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4 | Genesis | Jesusman | 33024 | ||
Hello, I would say that Genesis 6:1-4 is summerizing the events of Chapter 4 and 5, and providing the basis for why the flood was coming. Chapter 4, as you have pointed out, discusses the line of Cain and his cursing. Chapter 5, more appropriately, discusses the line of Seth, not the line of Adam. Because cain was also Adam's son, cursed he maybe, but still a son. Therefore, chapter 4 is also talking about Adam's line. To narrow it down, chapter 4 is talking about cain's line, and chapter 5 is talking about seth's line. Chapter 6 provides the reasons why the flood was coming. The two lines intermarried, sin grew, and man became more sinful in his actions. As a result, God cursed man to live only for 120 years, told Noah to build an ark, and eventually sent the flood to cleanse the earth. So, in Genesis 6:1-4 alone, you have the line of seth, which remained obedient to God, being represented as the "Son's of God", and the line of Cain, which was cursed and sinful, being represented as the "Daughters of Men". The line of Seth saw that the women of Cain's line were beautiful, and they took them as wives. As a result, the sons from seth's line dived deeper into sin, and began to fulfill their fleshly desires. God became angered by this, cursed man to only live for 120 years, and had noah to prepare for the flood. Due to Noah's faithfulness, he was spared from the curse of limited age, and was given the chance to keep the line of Seth alive, thus saving mankind from extinction. Jesusman |
||||||
11 | The Sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4 | Genesis | Norrie | 33027 | ||
That is a great explanation! | ||||||