Results 1 - 4 of 4
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | explain Genesis 6:2-4 | 2 Pet 2:4 | COG39 | 239021 | ||
Genesis 6:2,3 speaks of "the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair ;and they took them wives of all which they chose." Who were these sons of God. And also verse four I don't understand at all. Thanks if anyone can help me understand this better. I've heard rumor of strange things here. | ||||||
2 | explain Genesis 6:2-4 | 2 Pet 2:4 | Jalek | 239043 | ||
Greetings, As Doc mentioned before, there are a lot of posts on this topic. However, understanding this passage is a lot simpler than you might imagine. First off, forget the idea of angels coming down and doing the dirty with humans. That's straight out of mythology and doesn't have any support Biblically. In fact, the Bible in other places teaches against this theory. The strongest is in Mark 12:25. Jesus says that Angels "neither marry nor are given in marriage." Now, Genesis 6:2 specifically says that the "Sons of God" took "wives" from among the "Daughters of Men". Now, another place is in Hebrews 1:5. The writer asks a rhetorical question "To which of the angels did He ever say 'You are my son, today I have begotten you'?" The answer is obvious. None of them. In fact, no where in the Bible do you read that Angels are the Sons of God. Now, some will bring up Job 1:6 and Job 38:7 where the term "Sons of God" is used and seems to imply "angels". However, there is another interpretation that also fits in the context, and one that very few seem to suggest. The phrase "sons of God" comes from two Hebrew words: "Bene" for "Sons" and "Elohim" for "God". Now, "Bene" does mean a biological male offspring, but it can also mean "a member of or one who is loyal to a group or an organization". "Elohim" is plural in Hebrew, which means "three or more". There's a separate number for two called "Dual". The singular form is "El" or "Elah". Also, Elohim takes most of it's verbs and modifiers in the singular and is often treated as singular instead of plural. Now, put those two together in the context of Job, and you have people who are members of a group called "God", and the group is composed of at least three members, but treated as one entity. What does that sound like? To me, it's almost a text book definition of the Trinity, and it's found in the Old Testament. So, now that the passages in Job are explained, what does "Sons of God" mean in Genesis? There's another definition for the phrase. Jesus is called the Son of God, but so are human believers. 1 John 3:1 comes right out and says it, as does Romans 8:14. Now, remember this. "bene" has an implied meaning of loyalty as well as "offspring". With that perspective, and given that the context is actually speaking about males and females coming together, then the strongest support is that the "Sons of God" in Genesis are humans believers who have up until that point been obedient to God, which would point to Seth's lineage given how one of Seth's descendants is described as having "walked with God". Conversely, "Daughters of Men" would be those women who followed the footsteps of man, or Adam, and were disobedient. This points, obviously, to Cain's line. That explains both the "Sons of God" and the "Daughters of Men". So, how about the Nephilim or Giants? For that, pay close attention to how verse 4 begins. It's so obvious, that everyone seems to miss it. "The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterwards, when the Sons of God came in to the daughters of Men ...". Did you catch it? When the Sons and the Daughters came together, the Nephilim were already in existence!!! How can the Nephilim be the offspring if they were already living when the sons and daughters mated?? It is so blatantly obvious that it sticks out like a sore thumb, but a lot of people miss it for some reason. So, if the Nephilim aren't the offspring, then who are they? That is also a given. It's a time reference. This took place at a time when this group of "creatures", for lack of a better term, walked the earth. The term of Nephilim is used in only one other place, and that's in Numbers to describe how big the canaanites were. The Nephilim in Numbers cannot be the descendants of the ones in Genesis. Why? Because there's a big "WET" event that separates the two called "The Great Flood". That changes the meaning of Nephilim from identifying a race of people to being a term to describe stature. Now, put that into perspective and what do you get? Here's a hint. What group has science proven that existed, but the Bible seems suspiciously silent about? Perhaps Dinosaurs? Could "nephilim" be a term to describe the size of a dinosaur and that the use in Genesis 6 is telling us that this happened when they still walked the earth while the use in Numbers is saying that the people the spies encountered where as big as dinosaurs? It fits. The simplest explanation is the one I just described. The context doesn't support "Angels" being the "Sons of God". All you have in the chapter's prior and following are God dealing with humans and hardly any serious mention of Angels until much later when you get into the stories of Abraham. Jalek |
||||||
3 | explain Genesis 6:2-4 | 2 Pet 2:4 | Source:Bible | 239058 | ||
Hello, you talked about context. The dictionary describes this as:"the parts of a discourse that surround a word or passage and can throw light on its meaning" if you reread Mark 12:25 as you referenced you will notice the self righteous Sadduccees who were trying to gang up on Jesus asked a question about the resurrection through use of a scenario of a woman marrying each brother....If anything when reading this it would enhance the principle. That angels taking human wives is wrong so that reference you used is not efficient. Yet again at Hebrews 1:5 you must look at the context. This is referring to the superior position Jesus has among the angels notice:after he gave his life; notice the verses before 3,4 and also after in verse 9. The term Sons of God is not mentioned here as a phrase..this is referring to Jesus position and not efficient. Remember that the Bible is harmonious, trying to misapply scriptures will only confuse and disheartened. Like you said Genesis is pretty plain about who it is referencing. I am not here to debate the Trinity, not sure how that even came into this, however it makes sense that this was your agenda in replying for Doc. It is amazing how the very verses that support Genesis 6 you discredit on the grounds of what? To support yet again secular rhetoric knowledge..why not let God's word stand. Look at what you cited at what1 John 3:1, then verse 2 which says "we are now children of God" this would the help one to see it is not a state born into such as family heritage but given by God himself. Notice the reference is Persians 1:5 it references the ransom. Romans 8:14 again is in connection with the promise to faithful ones. How did we get into the topic of dinosaurs? Try to stick to one topic at a time. Again speculation only leads to confusion. I hope that more concentrated Bible reading will help you come to the correct solution. I believe people come to this forum to find out what the Bible says on the subjects and your complex confusing of appropriate scriptures to affirm the opinion of someone else is disturbing. This is why I learned ti go to the Bible for answers not men. | ||||||
4 | explain Genesis 6:2-4 | 2 Pet 2:4 | Jalek | 239059 | ||
Greetings, First off, my reply wasn't to Doc nor to you, but to the original poster. Secondly, I find the notion that you believe me to be some secular troublemaker disturbing since there is absolutely zero proof of such accusations in anything I have written in my short time here. For that, I would like an apology. Thirdly, I didn't turn to any secular sources at all. I provided an interpretation of the passage based on the grammar, hermeneutics, and simple common sense. As for Mark 12, yes, read the context. The topic is a question of who's wife will she be? Jesus answers that at the time, there will be no marriage, but that it will be for them as it is for the angels now. Meaning, that there will be no marriage. Now, to imply that Angels neither marry nor are given in marriage is not a great stretch of the context, but is plain in the text. My point in using this passage is to discredit the notion that the identity of the Sons of God in Genesis 6 is angels. This is based partly on the fact that the "Sons of God" took wives. As for Hebrews 1, again, the topic is comparing Jesus to Angels, and the rhetorical question is made of which angel did God declare to be his child? The answer, which I stated before, is obvious. None of them. Again, this also applies to discredit the identity of the "Sons of God" in Genesis 6 as being angels because, as Hebrews implies, no angel has been called "a son of God". Now, my use of Romans 8:14 and 1 John 3:1 is to help support my main belief that the identity of the Sons of God in Genesis 6 is the line of Seth, who appeared to have been obedient to God's will, which carries a similar meaning to the usage in Romans and 1 John. A broader definition would "Human believers" As for the explanation of the Trinity, if you had read what I said, it should be clear. The only obscure use of the phrase "Sons of God" is found in Job. I was providing an alternative interpretation of the use of that phrase in Job as a pre-emptive explanation as to one of the more popular support passages that people will use to say that the Sons of God in Genesis 6 are angels. They will often use Job. My theory on the dinosaurs is just a simple explanation on who the nephilim really are. They can't be the offspring of the Sons and Daughters because they were already living when the two groups mated. Therefore, it means something else, as I explained before. Now, I have given my explanation on the passage, and I have provided this added bit of clarity. For the record, I did stick to the topic at hand, which was identifying the Sons of God and the Nephilim in Genesis 6. I pulled from resources found elsewhere in the Bible to support my claims. Never did I cite a resource outside the Bible. If you wish to believe in the myth of angels mating with humans, and creating demigods straight out of the tales of Greek Mythology, go ahead. Personally, I'll believe what I've supported, that this was a time when the godly line of Seth intermarried with the ungodly line of Cain, and it happened when the nephilim still walked the earth. Jalek |
||||||