Results 141 - 160 of 221
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Jesusman Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
141 | The Sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4 | Genesis | Jesusman | 33908 | ||
Hello, Hebrews 1 clearly says that angels are "ministering spirits". While they can appear to be in physical form, that does not mean that they are physical. It just means that they look like they are physical when in reality they are spirits. I can appear to look like a bunny, that doesn't make me a bunny. Jesusman |
||||||
142 | The Sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4 | Genesis | Jesusman | 33907 | ||
Hello, The meaning of any phrase is dependant upon the context in which it is used. Certain generalities can be made about a particular meaing, but the definite meaning will depend upon how it is used in it's context. Jesusman |
||||||
143 | Why the Old and New Testament? | Bible general Archive 1 | Jesusman | 33906 | ||
Hello, The OT lifeless???? I wouldn't say that. Neither do I agree that the New Testament is more glorious than the Old. I would say that the New Testament is Glorious in a different way than the Old, but not more. Many of the passages that refer to the glory and majesty of God the Father are found in the Old Testament. I also don't agree that the OT is depressing. I find numerous uplifting and joyous passages in the Old Testament. At one point, I believed that all a person needed was the NT and that the OT was just for background information. I later read Philip Yancy's Book, "The Bible Jesus Read." It goes into the Old Testament and it's importance. During that time frame, I started studying the Old Testament phrases and passages being quoted in the New Testament. One that came to mind was Phillip and the Etheopian eunich. The Passage in focus was Isaiah 53:7-8. With that passage, Phillip lead the Etheopian to Christ. As I continued my studies, I soon realized that the 1st century church didn't have the New Testament completed and handy. They had the Old Testament availiable and had to utilize that. You see, the gospel message was designed such, through divine means, to be given, presented, studied, and seen throughout the entire text of the Scripture. Meaning that you can find the Gospel message in any passage in the Bible. You give me a text, and I'll present the Gospel message and how it points to Christ. Jesus Loves You! Jesusman |
||||||
144 | Did Satan know God's plan for salvation | Bible general Archive 1 | Jesusman | 33352 | ||
Hello, You asked, "Why not just have him stoned to death?" The answer has to do with the messianic prophecies and the sacrificial laws. The Prophets clearly speak of the Messiah being Crucified some 500 years before the Romans invented crucifixion. Second, the Sacrifical Laws state that the Sacrifice is to be slain, not stoned. The Blood needed to be shed in order for the Sacrifice to be lawful. The way to accomplish that in Jesus' time was through him being crucified. On top of that, you have the humiliation, pain, and torment that Jesus went through. Jesus had to suffer the payment of the cumulated total of the sins of the entire world throughout history. Stoning wouldn't have even scratched the surface. Jesus Loves You! Jesusman |
||||||
145 | The Sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4 | Genesis | Jesusman | 33320 | ||
Hello, Seth was the appointed offspring through the prophecy in Genesis 3:15, not appointed through being the firstborn. The prophecy in Genesis 3:15 states that an offspring from the woman will bruise the head of the serpent, which identifies Christ. Dr. Luke provides the geneology that takes Jesus through Solomon's brother nathan, thus fulfilling the prophecy of the messiah being of David's line, then takes it back through Abraham, then to Noah, then to Seth, then Adam, and finally God. The line could not have been through Cain due to him being cursed. It could not have been Abel due to his death. Therefore, it must have been through Seth, and Genesis 4:25-26 tells us that Seth was "appointed" to begin the messianic line since his birth. As for Genesis 4:26, and the "proclaim" meaning "profain". I haven't been able to find any support for that. In fact, the same language has been used in Psalms 116:13-17, Zephaniah 3:9, and Zechariah 13:9. All of these passages refer to believers and followers of God calling out to him in worship and through salvation. It is more likely that the usage in Genesis 4:26 is similar in meaning to these others that are mentioned. As for Seth being a Godly line, there is evidence that his descendants were followers of God. Enoch, and Noah for example are two that are listed as obeying God. So, since these two obeyed God, and that there are some listed between them, it is reasonable to assume that the belief and obedience to God was passed down from Father to Son, possibly beginning with Adam, Eve, and Seth. This can be also supported with Eve's comments concerning Seth's birth. She attributes his Birth to God. An unbeliever and sinner wouldn't openly do that. Therefore, there is some support for thinking that Eve, and possibly Adam as well, reformed their belief and obedience to God. Then you have the meaning of "Sons of God" and "Daughters of man". While this is referring to Male offspring and Female offspring, I believe it also carries an implied meaning as well. Declaring that you are "of 'someone" did not always mean that you were related to him. It also meant that you followed that person in allegience or in thought, belief, and etc. A perfect example of this is found in the Pauline epistles. I think it was to the Corinthians that he said something like, "there are those who say, 'I am of Paul. I am of Apollos. I am of Cephas.' I say be none of that, but be of Jesus Christ." I think this is implied into Genesis 6:1-4. On one hand, You have the male members who were obedient to God and Worshipped him. They were "of God". On the other hand, you have the female members who indulged in the desires of the flesh, and disobeyed God. They were "of Man". The males saw the females as beautiful, and took them as wives. Jesus Loves You! Jesusman |
||||||
146 | The Sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4 | Genesis | Jesusman | 33028 | ||
Hello, Thanks Tim. Could you email me the spects of the book you referenced this from. Author, editor, ISBN, and so forth. I'm interested in getting a copy. Email: jesusman@christianemail.com Thanks Jesusman |
||||||
147 | The Sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4 | Genesis | Jesusman | 33024 | ||
Hello, I would say that Genesis 6:1-4 is summerizing the events of Chapter 4 and 5, and providing the basis for why the flood was coming. Chapter 4, as you have pointed out, discusses the line of Cain and his cursing. Chapter 5, more appropriately, discusses the line of Seth, not the line of Adam. Because cain was also Adam's son, cursed he maybe, but still a son. Therefore, chapter 4 is also talking about Adam's line. To narrow it down, chapter 4 is talking about cain's line, and chapter 5 is talking about seth's line. Chapter 6 provides the reasons why the flood was coming. The two lines intermarried, sin grew, and man became more sinful in his actions. As a result, God cursed man to live only for 120 years, told Noah to build an ark, and eventually sent the flood to cleanse the earth. So, in Genesis 6:1-4 alone, you have the line of seth, which remained obedient to God, being represented as the "Son's of God", and the line of Cain, which was cursed and sinful, being represented as the "Daughters of Men". The line of Seth saw that the women of Cain's line were beautiful, and they took them as wives. As a result, the sons from seth's line dived deeper into sin, and began to fulfill their fleshly desires. God became angered by this, cursed man to only live for 120 years, and had noah to prepare for the flood. Due to Noah's faithfulness, he was spared from the curse of limited age, and was given the chance to keep the line of Seth alive, thus saving mankind from extinction. Jesusman |
||||||
148 | The Sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4 | Genesis | Jesusman | 32937 | ||
Hello, I'm not asking people to read this passage with an open mind, but to read it in relation to the verses, passages, and chapters surrounding it, leading up to it, and following it. I can read a couple passages with an open mind and get a conclusion that is totally different than if I read the passage in relation to the surrounding passages. For example I can read the verse that says, "And Judas went and hanged himself." and read the one that says, "Go thou, and do ye likewise." Then I would have support for saying that suicide is Biblical. Now, the context of the passages say different. In fact, they are totally unrelated. But without the knowledge of their context, I wouldn't know that. I am trying to prevent that. I am trying to prevent someone from taking Scripture out of context. Many of the false donctrine that have crept into the church have been introduced due to taking the Scripture out of context. It's dangerous and should not be done. Jesus Loves You! Jesusman |
||||||
149 | The Sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4 | Genesis | Jesusman | 32936 | ||
Hello, I understand your concerns. One reason why I haven't responded to the Vine's quote is mostly due to the lack of time. I am only using the internet during my work hours. Therefore, I only respond to things that don't require much research for me. Responding to the quote from Vine's would require more research than I am currently able. On top of that, I don't have a copy of Vine's handy at home either. It's locked up in storage. So, I've had to work with what I do have handy, which is my knowledge of the Greek and Hebrew languages. I have some references in those areas in a backpack sitting next to me. What I can say about Vine's is that it's a resource. Normally, he gives the information related to the topic and passage at hand, and allows the reader to develope his own conclusions. Now, I cannot deny that "niphillim" is related to "napel" in some form. However, there are other words which sound similar to "niphillim" which also have different meanings. I am currently researching those possibilities during my days off. As for the numerous resources, I have found that not all of them is totally correct. each resource has an error or two here or there. I have also noticed that many, even commentaries, will give the various views concerning a passage and leave the final decision up to the reader. My post just prior to this one was an attempt to get you, or everyone for that matter, to see the passage in it's context, and to see it from my point of view. I remember something one of my religion professors told me. "When you examine a passage, don't look at the passage alone, but read around it. Read the whole chapter that contains the passage. Then read the chapter before and chapter following. Then keep on expanding until you have included the whole book. Finally, sit down and read the whole book in one stance, without stopping, taking a break, or being interrupted. During this time, read it as though you would read a novel or the newspaper. Then you will have a full understanding of the context of the passage." That's what I was trying to do. You see, we cannot just look at just Genesis 6:1-4 by itself. We nee to look at Genesis 1-5, and Genesis 6:5 and on until the end of the Book. I realize that not every one has the same access to the same reference material. I think it's a shame. I'll look at the thread you listed. Jesus Loves You! Jesusman |
||||||
150 | The Sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4 | Genesis | Jesusman | 32460 | ||
Hello D, Let's try something, an experiment if you will. Try to set aside the knowledge of Biblical texts, doctrine, greek and hebrew grammer, the mountains of reference materials and so forth. Read Genesis chapter 1 through to the end of chapter 10. Try to read it as though you are reading an article in the USA Today or the National Geographic. Read it as a reasoning, curious human would, expecting a concise and fluent article. After doing so, think to yourself if "angels" and "humans" fits best in Genesis 6:1-4 or if "the line of seth" and "the line of cain" fits best. What do you get? Jesusman |
||||||
151 | The Sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4 | Genesis | Jesusman | 32459 | ||
Hello, Hank covered what I wanted to say about Job very well. So, I'll talk about the matters of "oiketerion". Actually, "oiketerion" is connected to "oikos" which means "house, habitation, dwelling", and with "oiketeia" which refers to servants of a household. In both passages, the connotation is that the people in reference are close servants in God's habitation. In 2 Cor. 5:2, Paul is saying that as God's children, we long to be united with the house inwhich we belong to, that is, Heaven. In Jude 6, he is saying that the angels left the house inwhich they were a part of, and servants in, ie: Heaven. Overall, I must disagree about Genesis 6 referring to angels marrying humans. The evidence keeps pointing me to another meaning. Jesusman |
||||||
152 | The Sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4 | Genesis | Jesusman | 32455 | ||
Hello Tim, Sorry about waiting to say this, I've been doing more research. It has bearing on this topic in greek and Jude 7. According to Walter Bauer in his lexicon, "outos" in a substantival usage will reference something or someone "that has immediately preceeded". Also, whatever "outos" is referencing will have just been mentioned. With that, and given the pronoun's need to follow the gender of the noun it is referring to, then "toutois" in jude 7 must be neuter and referring to "Sodom and Gammorah". Especially concidering that "sodom and Gammorah" immediately preceeds "toutois" in relation to "angels". Jesusman |
||||||
153 | New Gender-Neutral NIV | 2 Sam 7:28 | Jesusman | 32447 | ||
Hello Hank, To do a gender neutral version would be going against Scripture. Let me explain what would be involved to make the Bible gender neutral. In the hebrew, there is no neuter gender form. The only genders are masculine and feminine. To make a gender neutral translation, you would have to redesign the language of hebrew, and create a whole new set of paradigms for the neuter gender. In greek, you do have a neuter gender, along with the masculine and feminine genders, but the neuter only accomodates a percentage of the language. To make the greek gender neutral, you will have to rewrite the entire greek vocabulary to reflect the neuter forms. This was explained to me by a man who was on the original translation committee for the NIV: Dr. W. Harold Mare. He was, when we last talked, adamantly opposed to the NIV becoming Gender neutral. Jesusman |
||||||
154 | The Sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4 | Genesis | Jesusman | 32444 | ||
Hello, Do you honestly think that my only proof text for human believers being the "Sons of God" is Hebrews? Nope! Romans 8:12-17 and 1 John 3:1 both identifies Christians as God's Children. Hosea 1:10 has God saying that Israel are to be his sons. Hosea 11:1 says that this happened when Israel was still in slavery in egypt. Jesus says in Matthew 5:9 that the peacemakers will also be called the sons of God. All of these passages point to those humans who believed in and obeyed God. The same definition, someone who is obedient to God, can also be applied to Jesus Christ as the Son of God. The term "Sons of God" is one which carries the meaning of one who is obedient. The angels are forbidden to marry (Matthew 22:30). Whether or not they are capable is not of importance, they are not allowed to. Genesis 6:1-4 clearly identifies "Sons of God", a term carrying the meaning of obedience. If Genesis 6:1-4 is talking about angels, then there is a clear contradiction in meaning, for they would be in disobedience to God and not be "Sons of God", but "demons". As a result, they would've been identified as such. However, we find no such reference in Genesis 6:1-4. Therefore, the term "Sons of God" must represent a different group which is in obedience to God. The only other group that fits is the line of Seth. Jesusman |
||||||
155 | 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 |
||||||
156 | The Sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4 | Genesis | Jesusman | 32221 | ||
Hello, No, it is not a moot point. In fact, it strenghtens my point. God has declared Jesus Christ to be his son, and has declared Human believers to be his sons. God has not declared angels to be his sons. Hebrews 1 says that. Again, the ball is in your court to provide a verse that says angels are called God's sons. Jesusman |
||||||
157 | The Sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4 | Genesis | Jesusman | 32218 | ||
Hello, I have given proof that angels cannot be the "Sons of God" in Genesis 6. Therefore, the only explaination left is that it must be referring to the lines of Seth and Cain. What else can it be? Space Aliens from another galaxy? Jesusman |
||||||
158 | 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 |
||||||
159 | The Sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4 | Genesis | Jesusman | 32214 | ||
Hello, Again, after several times of saying this, I have already explained this. However, I shall do so again. The Niphillim of Genesis 6:1-4 and the Niphillim of Numbers 13:33 cannot be related to one another. WHY? The Great Flood separates them. The Bible clearly says that all life on the earth, save those on the ark, was destroyed. So, the only way for the Niphillim to have survived the flood is that they were on the Ark. Therefore, either Noah and/or members of his family were niphillim, which is not supported in the Bible, or that the Niphillim were animals, which would mean again that the Niphillim of Numbers 13 are not related to the Niphillim of Genesis because Numbers is describing humans. Therefore, the term "niphillim" must be a term of description. Thus describing someone or something that is Giant in stature, fierce in actions, and has a possible tendancy to stomp on their prey or enemies. The only group I know of that would fit that description that also would've existed during the early chapters of Genesis are the Dinosaurs. Place that meaning in the passage in Genesis, along with the meaning that the mentioning of Niphillim in Genesis is to provide a time reference, you then have the author saying the the time when the "Sons of God" married the "Daughters of Men" happened when Dinosaurs where on the earth. Now, am I saying that the Niphillim of Numbers 13 are Dinosaurs also? No, the Bible clearly says that they are men. Jesus Loves You! Jesusman |
||||||
160 | The Sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4 | Genesis | Jesusman | 32107 | ||
Hello, What is so difficult to understand about Job, 2 Peter, and Jude? All 2 Peter says is that the angels left their natural dwelling. From other places in Scripture, we know that some of the angels left with Satan when he rebelled against God. The Passage in 2 Peter elludes to nothing about Angels marrying humans. As for Jude, I have provided an analysis of the Greek language in Jude. It clearly says that the angels left their dwelling, confirming 2 Peter, and that the cities followed in the sexual immorality actions that Sodom and Gamorrah acted. To say that it says that the angels were sexually immoral would disrupt the context of the passage and go against the standard rules of Greek grammer. As for Job, it's largely a toss up. It either says "sons of God" or "Angels of God", depending upon which early manuscript is referred to. It doesn't say both. As for Genesis 6:4 and the phrase "in those days and also afterward...", I have explained this so many times, it isn't funny. This is in reference to the Niphillim. They existed up until the time when the sons and daughters married each other, and they existed afterwards. Obviously they would have ceased to exist when the Flood came because the only land life to survive the Flood were those inside the Ark. Therefore, the Niphillim are given as a time reference only. This phrase is only limited to the Niphillim. It does not refer to the lines of Cain and Seth. True, I may not have responded to every point you have made. However, there is one question that I have asked time and time again, and no one has been able to answer it. "WHERE DOES IT CLEARLY SAY IN THE BIBLE THAT THE ANGELS ARE THE SONS OF GOD?" I have asked this question over and over, and no one has been able to give a reference. I'll tell you why. Because the Bible never makes the claim that angels are the sons of God. In fact, it refutes the notion in Hebrews 1:5. That little fact alone blows a giant gaping hole the size of Texas right into the middle of the angel idea of Genesis 6:1-4. The only "groups" identified as "The Sons of God" are Jesus Christ himself, and human believers, such as Christians and Israel. No other group is ever identified as being "the Sons of God" The only explaination that fits in Genesis 6:1-4 is that the lines of Seth and Cain ultimately married into each other. Jesus Loves You! Jesusman |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ] Next > Last [12] >> |