Results 1 - 7 of 7
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Dose the bible note angels by gender? | Bible general Archive 4 | biblicalman | 228874 | ||
Hi lionheart Not on this forum. I tried to email you but my email account did not 'recognise' your email address. Best wishes. |
||||||
2 | Dose the bible note angels by gender? | Bible general Archive 4 | stjohn | 228884 | ||
Dear Biblicakman, Just a friendly word of advice and no offense intended. Please know this is in the spirit of Lockmans intentions according to the TOU and nothing personal. If you cannot explain something using scripture, and even perhaps some well excepted commentary, in an open forum, then maybe we should not bring it up in the first place. Demonic intercourse is, to say the least a bit far fetched, perhaps one may even say IMHO patently ludicrous, again no offense intended, please. I have been impressed with your knowledge, and willingness to share it thus far. Keep up the good work, sir.-John |
||||||
3 | Dose the bible note angels by gender? | Bible general Archive 4 | biblicalman | 228890 | ||
hi John well as i think that Gen 6.1-4 does actually teach that evil angels (demons) did in some way have intercourse with women, something confirmed by Jude 6, I consider that my answer was based on Scripture. Many well accepted commentaries would confirm it. Kidner says, 'the normal meaning of the actual term 'sons of God' (bene elohim) is 'angels' and nothing has prepared the reader to assume that 'men' now means Cainites only.' He then adds 'the craving of demons for a body, evident in the Gospels, offers at least some parallel to this hunger for sexual experience'. He cites in support 1 Peter 3.19-20; 2 Peter 2.4-6; Jude 6; and more clearly Jewish tradition in Enoch 6.2 and Qumran Genesis Apocryphon col.II. I don't think that you can doubt Kidner's credentials as a Consevative Evangelical scholar. We may not be able to fully explain it. But it is there and quite clear. We must not hide from the difficult things in Scripture. Beside the Bible text both your and my opinions are very secondary. In the Old Testament bene elohim (those in the likeness of the elohim i.e. spirits) always refers to angels. I do not avoid diffciulties by trying to explain them away. But I have no wish to prolong the subject. It is not one of the most savoury parts of Scripture. which is why God brought about the Flood. Best wishes. |
||||||
4 | Dose the bible note angels by gender? | Bible general Archive 4 | stjohn | 228891 | ||
It is most notably excepted by the most prominent of scholars that angles good or bad were not the guilty party, nor could they be culpable in any way as the fathers of evil men, but it was the iniquity of man that bore Gods wrath, which caused Him to bring about the flood. Matthew Henry for example writes; --"We are told of the abounding iniquity of that wicked world: God's just wrath, and his holy resolution to punish it. In all ages there has been a peculiar curse of God upon marriages between professors of true religion and its avowed enemies. The evil example of the ungodly party corrupts or greatly hurts the other."-- Something Jesus Christ himself attests too, is, that angels, good, or we can safely assume, fallen or bad, did not and indeed cannot have sexual relations with man nor any being, flesh or spirit whatsoever. Indeed, the well noted John Wesley, writes on Gen 6:2; --" The sons of God - Those who were called by the name of the Lord, and called upon that name, married the daughters of men - Those that were profane, and strangers to God. The posterity of Seth did not keep to themselves as they ought, but intermingled with the race of Cain: they took them wives of all that they chose - They chose only by the eye: They saw that they were fair - Which was all they looked at."-- The commentary of Jamieson Faussett and Brown has this to say about Gen 6:2; --" the sons of God saw the daughters of men--By the former is meant the family of Seth, who were professedly religious; by the latter, the descendants of apostate Cain."-- John Calvin says with much fervor that; --"That ancient figment, concerning the intercourse of angels with women, is abundantly refuted by its own absurdity; and it is surprising that learned men should formerly have been fascinated by ravings so gross and prodigious. The opinion also of the Chaldean paraphrase is frigid; namely, that promiscuous marriages between the sons of nobles, and the daughters of plebeians, is condemned. Moses, then, does not distinguish the sons of God from the daughters of men, because they were of dissimilar nature, or of different origin; but because they were the sons of God by adoption, whom he had set apart for himself; while the rest remained in their original condition. Should any one object, that they who had shamefully departed from the faith, and the obedience which God required, were unworthy to be accounted the sons of God; the answer is easy, that the honor is not ascribed to them, but to the grace of God, which had hitherto been conspicuous in their families. For when Scripture speaks of the sons of God, sometimes it has respect to eternal election, which extends only to the lawful heirs; sometimes to external vocations according to which many wolves are within the fold; and thought in fact, they are strangers, yet they obtain the name of sons, until the Lord shall disown them."-- " those "sons of God" were not angels either good or bad, as many have thought, since they are incorporeal beings, and cannot be affected with fleshly lusts, or marry and be given in marriage, or generate and be generated;" -- Any other view IMHO it seems most likely is quit ludicrous and really confounds and complicates what the scripture makes quite clear.-John | ||||||
5 | Dose the bible note angels by gender? | Bible general Archive 4 | biblicalman | 228912 | ||
I will only say: There are three general references to 'men' in Genesis 1-10: 'At that time 'men' began to call on the name of YHWH.' (4.25). A general usage but this clearly mainly refers to 'believers' (the godly). 'When 'men' began to multiply on the face of the ground and daughters were born to them --' (6.1). This must signify the generality of men including the above. And it is the daughters of these men who cohabited with the bene elohim (6.2). There are absolutely no grounds for this reference to 'men' as specifically referring to Cainites. If words mean anyhing it refers to the generality of men including believers. The bene elohim (sons of the elohim) are mentioned in Job 1.6; 2.1 where in both cases the reference is to heavenly beings. See also Job 38.7. 'sons of' in Hebrew signifies 'of the same character as, same likeness as ' (compare 'the sons of Belial'). Thus sons of 'the elohim (i.e. of spirit beings - see 1 Samuel 28.13) would be expected to mean 'those of the likeness of spirit beings'. In the light of this it appears to me that rather than being obvious, to make Genesis 6 1-2 refer to a contrast between a so-called godly line who are all destroyed in the Flood (apart from the Noahs), and a godless line (whose names regularly and significantly include God's name) who are destroyed in the same flood is samething like special pleading. |
||||||
6 | Dose the bible note angels by gender? | Bible general Archive 4 | Holmes | 228926 | ||
Matthew 5:9 “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God. Luke 20:36 for they cannot even die anymore, because they are like angels, and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection. Romans 8:14 For all who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God. Romans 8:19 For the anxious longing of the creation waits eagerly for the revealing of the sons of God. Galatians 3:26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. There is nothing to support your contention that "sons of God" as used in Job 1.6 and 2.1 are referring to demons. Even when "sons of God" makes reference to angels in Job 38.7 it is not referring to fallen angels. Fallen angels or demons would never be referred to as "sons of God." It is not in harmony with scripture. The "Godly" were not destroyed in the flood. The Godly line was destroyed when it became corrupted by intermarriage with the corrupt. All except for Noah and his family. Holmes |
||||||
7 | Dose the bible note angels by gender? | Bible general Archive 4 | biblicalman | 228927 | ||
Hi Holmes You will note that all your references are to huioi theou (sons of God) not to bene elohim (sons of the elohim), and all refer to the New Testament. They are in a totally different category from references in the Old Testament to bene elohim. You have admitted yourself that all references to bene elohim (which is better translated 'sons of the elohim, spirit world' not 'sons of God') refer to angels. KJV in Psalm 8.5 translates 'elohim' as angels (which is confirmed in Hebrews 2.7). You make the mistake of thinking that elohim always means 'God'. It does not. It is also used of 'false gods' behind which are demons (Deut 32.17; 1 Cor 10.20). And it is used by the witch of Endor of spirits which arise from the earth in necromancy (1 Samuel 28.13). That was what she thought that she saw. When referred to angels bene elohim does not mean 'sons of God' it means 'sone of the nature of the elohim, the spirit world'. Satan was one of the bene elohim (Job 1.6; 2.1). He was hardly a 'son of God'. The witch of Endor thought that she saw 'elohim' arising from the earth. They would certainly not have been good angels. 'Demon' simply equates to 'evil angel' (Deut 32.17). You say the godly were destroyed by inter-marriage? Well in that case it was happening well before Genesis 6.1-4. Descendants of Seth who died in the Flood would have been up to 800 years old or more. Thus in many cases their marriages would have been 700 years before the Flood. To me the narrative reads of a fairly recent occurrence within 120 years of the Flood. And there is no suggestion of widespread polygamy. You are of course entitled to interpret as you wish. What I am saying is that the actual Hebrew usage of both the terms 'men' and 'bene elohim' point to a relationship between humans and fallen angels. Even when I may not understand it I prefer to believe what the Scripture teaches. As Satan was clearly one of the bene elohim (sons of God) are you suggesting that he was not a fallen angel? Best wishes |
||||||