Results 1 - 2 of 2
|
|
|||||
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 | 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. | ||||||
2 | 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 |
||||||