Results 1 - 3 of 3
|
|
|||||
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 | 32547 | ||
Tim, sorry for the delay of response...needless to say Ive been busy with Jesusman. I want to say this much...I DONT BELIEVE the Line of Seth perished with the flood...NOAH is from that line. But I do believe the line of Cain died with the flood. And that is my main question of this issue. If there were giants in those days and afterward. Is this speaking of the Flood? If so, then did the sons of God have relations with daughters of men before the flood and after??? Is it because that Cains line didnt survive the flood the reason most people dont think the verse is saying these daughters had relations with these sons??? It would seem this is the main issue. I truly enjoy your thoughtful responses in this forum. And of course I would like to hear your view. *shalom* D |
||||||
2 | The Sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4 | Genesis | Morant61 | 32552 | ||
Greetings Disciple! I really don't know to what the phrase "and afterwards too" refers. I was doing some reading on this passage and several possibilities arise concerning the identity of the "giants". 1) The giants could be the offspring of the union referred to between the Sons of God (regardless of the view taken concerning their identity) and the daughters of men. 2) The giants could be a seperate but contemporary group with the offspring mentioned above. 3) The giants could be a reference to no group in particular, but simply tall men. Which view one adopts will determine whether the phrase "and afterwards too" can possibly refer to a time after the flood. Option 1 would work, but the passage only mentions one such union. We would have to assume that a second union occurred after the flood. This wouldn't be as huge a problem if the Sons of God were men, but would be more difficult if they were angels (simply because we would have to assume two distinct events rather than one). Option 2 would not seem to work at all, since all but Noah and his family perished during the flood. Option 3 would work simply because the term is descriptive not identifying any particular ethnic group. But, there are other possibilities as well. Perhaps the phrase "and afterwards too" refers not to the flood, but to the period of time (120 years?) between that time and the flood. I simply don't know for sure and there doesn't seem to be enough evidence to decide one way or the other. I do think that both you and Jesusman have done an excellent job presenting your cases (I think both make sense). I'm just not sure that it matters much either way! :-) Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
3 | The Sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4 | Genesis | The Disciple | 32646 | ||
ZOWIE ...Tim .... What a wonderful display of analysis... If you would please indulge me some: Gen 4:16, Cain left the presence of the Lord and went to start his own family. Gen 4:25, Adam and Eve had a son, named him Seth. Gen 5 now starts the NEW (?) lineage of Adam. And goes thru about a couple thousand years or so?? ( i didnt do the math ...so please dont bite ) Gen 6 now starts a new view of what was just read. Very much like Gen 1 - a whole lot of work is done...Gen 2 explains in greater detail what was done. So is Gen 6 an expansion - explanantion of things that took place. Since - CAIN has been disowned the context of "men multiplying" vs 1 of Chap 6 is very likely the line of Seth. Gen 4 Cain is disowned...then Seth is born. Gen 5 ...lineage of mankind is now the topic. Mankind is seen as being specifically the line of Seth. Gen 6 ...is now Cain brought back into the picture?? Or is Gen 6 still following the pattern set up as Mankind IS Seth ? I have to conclude that Mankind multiplying is the line of Seth. If daughters are born to them (mankind) then these daughters are in the line of Seth. So now comes the hard stuff??? The "sons of God" (line of Seth) came into the daughters of men (line of Seth) ?? OR, As Job 1 tries to help us in explaining "sons of God" we may conclude these to being "heavely beingss". HENCE, this lengthy thread....LOL Be that as it may...tell me what you think ... *Blessings...Shalom* D |
||||||