Results 1 - 5 of 5
|
|
|||||
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 | 31368 | ||
Hello, The main problem that I see with "Sons of God" referring to Angels is that this passage would be the one, and only time that this phrase is used to mean angels. On top of that, you have passages in the New Testament in which the Greek clearly is saying something other than what everybody is wanting it to say. Take Jude 5-7 for example. I have shown through an analysis of the Greek that verse seven is not talking about the cities in relation to the actions of the angels in verse 6, but the cities in relation to the actions of Sodom and Gamorrah, which are listed in verse 7. Also, all that Peter says is that the angels left their natural domain. He says nothing that even hints to idea that angels had relations with humans. Then you have the question in Hebrews 1:5 that asks, "to which of the angels has HE said, you are my son, today I have begotten thee?" Then you have the numerous times where human believers, either Israel or Christians, and Jesus Christ are all called the "Sons of God". I have dismissed the passages in Job chapters 1 and 2 because of the question of what the original text says. Some manuscripts have "angels of God" and others have "Sons of God". This variation makes Job's passages unreliable in this discussion. Even further, there is the context of Genesis 1 - 19. Up until the destuction of Sodom and Gamorrah in Genesis 19, the only angelic creature referred to is the Cherubim with the flaming sword. To talk about angels for a length of 4 verses without calling them angels, then to refer to them by name again 12 chapters later adds confusion. Also, Genesis 2-3 talks about God and Man. Genesis 4-5 talks about the growth of Man, specifically Cain and Seth. With these two chapters you have names that appear in both lines. Then from Genesis 6:5- chapter 10 you have Noah's Ark. Now, to refer to angels in Genesis 6:1-4 makes me ask the questions, "where did the angels come from, and Why weren't they talked about before?" Remember the duplication of Names I mentioned, how do you resolve that if Genesis 6:1-4 refers to angels marrying humans? The only solution which solves these problems is that the Sons of God refers to Seth's line, the Daughters of Men refers to Cain's line, and Genesis 6:1-4 talks about when the two lines intermarried. It is the only way that it all makes sense. Jesus Loves You! Jesusman "God is not a God of confusion but of peace," 1 Corinthians 14:33. |
||||||
2 | The Sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4 | Genesis | The Disciple | 32145 | ||
Jesusman, I need to ask this... If the angels left their domain...what domain and where did they go? And why are they being seen in what your context says is the reference of the surrounding cities to S/G's immorality? In other words, why are the angels being used in relation to the verse itself? If the implication is of sexual immorality and that the cities around and S/G did do these hideous things. WHY bring angels into the text? Would this not convolute the text, if the text was speaking of the immorality of men? According to Vines on Jude 6,7...the definitions I have stated in other posts (to you and others) defines the angels leaving thier supernatural state and also their home. Which is why they were cast to Tartarus. Unless Vines in wrong...how can we conclude anything else? OR, If the Vines is correct, then these angels did in fact leave their supernatural place of ownership(heavenly body), and did in fact, leave their home (heaven) ... I cannot read anything else into what the Vines defined. If they left their heavenly body and left their heavenly home... is this the ONLY reason the Lord cast them to tartarus? Or is the inference in Jude emphatic on the text that...these angels did in fact leave heaven, their supernatural body and did have relations with the women??? The "strange flesh" as it were? I must admit, this verses are compelling in theory and the usage of our language in the translations make it difficult to truly understand. BUT I cannot believe that all the verses we have been over and over were tragically misquoted or misinterpted by these scholars that give us the same translation. Why is it only these verses that substantiate the positions I hold (and others) are incorrectly translated?? Very confusing indeed... *shalom* the Disciple |
||||||
3 | The Sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4 | Genesis | Jesusman | 32215 | ||
Hello, The Bible clearly teaches that an Angel's true domain is in the service to God the Father. Which would mean that they inhabit the spiritual realm and serve God, thus placing them in the Divine throne room. Satan and others rebelled, trying to take control of Heaven, and they were banished. Thus leaving their domain of obedience. As a result, they are to be punished by being sent into_the_lake_of_fire. Jesusman |
||||||
4 | The Sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4 | Genesis | The Disciple | 32328 | ||
You wrote: Satan and others rebelled, trying to take control of Heaven, and they were banished. Thus leaving their domain of obedience. As a result, they are to be punished by being sent into_the_lake_of_fire. "Trying to take control of heaven.."???? "Lake of fire"??? boy is my translation different....... D |
||||||
5 | The Sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4 | Genesis | Jesusman | 32441 | ||
Hello, Haven't you ever studied about Satan and his origins? Isaiah 14:12-15 is believed by many scholors to be parallelling the ambitions of Babylon with Satan's. In this passage it refers to them as trying to take over heaven and overthrow God. In fact, the term "daystar" or "morning star" is translated as "Lucifer" in the KJV, and is identified as Satan. Then in Revelation, you have Satan and his angels being thrown into the lake of fire. So, put them together, and you have Satan rebelling in an attempt to take over heaven. Jesusman |
||||||