Results 21 - 40 of 124
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: The Disciple Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
21 | 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 |
||||||
22 | The Sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4 | Genesis | The Disciple | 32550 | ||
JMan....thats the whole thing. I didnt come to my conclusion by reading commentaries or from searching from dictionaries or from another mans viewpoint. I came to this conclusion on my own by reading the material found in my NKJV Bible I recieved in Dec '91. Looking at the words written in english and the punctuation used. I am not a grammatarian (?) but I do have a decent command of how to read punctuation. When I read...and re-read ...and re-read Gen 6 ...I concluded after cross referencing from using the words "sons of God" throughout scripture that this must be talking of an UN-natural being. And to my surprise after a few years of not looking into it ...but a friend asking me to help him study this chapter...we both used our limited sources. Namely, Strongs concordance..a.nd Vines dictionary. I was totally dumbfounded that my findings from years previous was supported to my conclusions. Then, I started seeing more and more from others commentaries and so on and so on.... Then, 3 yrs ago...I heard the line of Cain theories...WOW....HOW confused I became. But to this moment....I am still compelled to the angels theory. And since you brought up that type of reading....have you seen the thread in Acts 2:6??? I believe if one were to read from the book of Acts they too would conclude the way I did...ehehehehehe Please...check this verse out and its thread. Am looking forward to more correspondance with you... I truly am loving your thoughtful mind and heart. D |
||||||
23 | 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 |
||||||
24 | The Sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4 | Genesis | The Disciple | 32457 | ||
Hank, THANK YOU... I see the biting tone in that YES INDEEDY. BUT, JESUS was speaking to hypocrites. NOT THE BRETHEREN. Shall I rest my case? LOL *SHALOM* D |
||||||
25 | The Sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4 | Genesis | The Disciple | 32456 | ||
Jesusman, Please, do us both a favor. Read my posts to you as slow as I read yours. I take into account all I see you say. I try not to breeze through so I dont misquote you or not see what you are trying to say. Please give me that much respect. I stated in ( ) parenthesis that I agree that we are sons of God. So most of that post was wasted breath. But for the rest... Matt 22:30 being forbidden to marry...YES..agree. Hence, thier incarciration in tartarus??? Your statement: "Whether or not they are capable is not of importance, they are not allowed to." BUT IS THIS NOT THE FACTS WE ARE PROBING????? Whether they are capable or not?? Flesh and bone angels came to this earth several times over the years. They are still coming in the flesh and they will continue to come in the flesh till Jesus comes. (I dare you to ask why I stand so firm on that) They left thier "estate"...which is their principality...which would be their heavenly body of authority. Like us...we are SPIRIT with a shell (earthly body)our authoritative position here on earth. They disobeyed GOD by leaving this position and their "abode" (heaven?)...hence, the special place of treatment...again, tartarus? ONLY THESE ANGELS WERE PUT THERE - NO OTHERS. Yes....after their fall with satan. Yes, they could be known as demons...or as some others claim, DEMONS are different than those angels..but that is another dissertation, eh?? Your convolution of sons of God and Son of God is un-founded. Con-founded too, to say the least. But, you are making me DIG DEEPER....and I thank you for that. YET, I am still compelled to my stand. Nary, a teeter, either. *SHALOM* D |
||||||
26 | The Sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4 | Genesis | The Disciple | 32330 | ||
Jesusman, In Hebrews...again, "For to which of the angels did He ever say: You are my Son, today I have begotten You." vs 5a "I will be to Him a Father, and He shall be to Me a Son." vs 5b Then, the rest of that CHAPTER continues to refer to JESUS....as HIS SON. I didnt even see where it says we are His sons. (But I do believe we are His sons, by the grafting into as a vine, and by inheritance, see Heb 2) The chapter itself in context declares Jesus Exalted above the angels. Then in Chapter 2, (cf. Ps 8:1-9) the Son was made lower than the angels.... So it doesnt strengthen your point. It acturally declares your point moot. I say moot, because, you state that Hebrews 1 is showing that we are sons of God like Jesus, when actually we arent. And NOR are the angels the SON of God. This is the context of the chapter...who the SON of God is....not who are the sons of God. And to answer your question about providing a verse to substantiate angels being sons OF God...not Gods SONS... I pointed out the angels being sons of God in JOB 1...but it seems your still on earth worshiping with Job in the presence of God and Satan happens to be there too.?? I truly would like to hear A response to what ive posted a few times about that.... If GOD is asking Satan "from where do you come?"..and Satan says, "from going to and fro FROM THE EARTH... and back and forth ON IT." Where are the sons of God and Satan with them presenting themselves to God ...AT ??? Did satan LEAVE earth to ... GO TO earth to present himself before the LORD? And your retort of the ball being in my court to provide a verse that says angels are called Gods sons...would be as bad as me saying the same of giving me a verse that says Cains lineage is the daughters of men. And I will say again, the BENT of the angels being sons of God is much more compelling and provocative ...and reasons with scripture on other angelic issues much more soundly ...then the line of Cain theory. BUT HEY....we are probably wrong about it. We only KNOW IN PART...so please let us not presume to be emphatic on issues based on what the WORD doesnt say emphatically. (yes, that was redundant..lol) *shalom* D |
||||||
27 | The Sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4 | Genesis | The Disciple | 32329 | ||
Jesusman, Space aliens from another galaxy....well...thats quite a statement. You may not be too far off with that. Your proof that the sons of God cant be angels doesnt correspond with the Vines dicitonary as I read it.... So much for compelling..?? And you say, "Therefore, the ONLY explanation left is that it MUST be referring to the lines of Seth and Cain." Truly this is a definition of scripture based on silence. Is it not? Please tell me...the Nephilim is not being presented as the offspring of this Union of Sons and Daughters. And Please tell me...this offspring is not what is being discussed as being there before and after the flood. And if you tell me these things...compel me with reasonable scripture to say this is not what happened. But do not compel me by stating your view is EMPHATICALLY the correct view. WE BOTH could be so far off ... since we see dimly in a mirror right now. *SHALOM* D |
||||||
28 | The Sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4 | Genesis | The Disciple | 32328 | ||
You wrote: 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. "Trying to take control of heaven.."???? "Lake of fire"??? boy is my translation different....... D |
||||||
29 | The Sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4 | Genesis | The Disciple | 32145 | ||
Jesusman, I need to ask this... If the angels left their domain...what domain and where did they go? And why are they being seen in what your context says is the reference of the surrounding cities to S/G's immorality? In other words, why are the angels being used in relation to the verse itself? If the implication is of sexual immorality and that the cities around and S/G did do these hideous things. WHY bring angels into the text? Would this not convolute the text, if the text was speaking of the immorality of men? According to Vines on Jude 6,7...the definitions I have stated in other posts (to you and others) defines the angels leaving thier supernatural state and also their home. Which is why they were cast to Tartarus. Unless Vines in wrong...how can we conclude anything else? OR, If the Vines is correct, then these angels did in fact leave their supernatural place of ownership(heavenly body), and did in fact, leave their home (heaven) ... I cannot read anything else into what the Vines defined. If they left their heavenly body and left their heavenly home... is this the ONLY reason the Lord cast them to tartarus? Or is the inference in Jude emphatic on the text that...these angels did in fact leave heaven, their supernatural body and did have relations with the women??? The "strange flesh" as it were? I must admit, this verses are compelling in theory and the usage of our language in the translations make it difficult to truly understand. BUT I cannot believe that all the verses we have been over and over were tragically misquoted or misinterpted by these scholars that give us the same translation. Why is it only these verses that substantiate the positions I hold (and others) are incorrectly translated?? Very confusing indeed... *shalom* the Disciple |
||||||
30 | The Sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4 | Genesis | The Disciple | 32143 | ||
Jesusman, Like I said before. You havent explained the line of Cain and Seth theory. You have stated, that the "sons" are not angels. Tell me the verse (Gen6:4) isnt saying... "In those days were the nephilim, and also afterwrd.." How were these Nephilim brought about? "when the sons of God and the daughters of men..bore children." So is this not saying, the nephilim came into being because of this union? If so, then the reference of the nephilim being there in those days and also afterward of the flood could not have transpired since Cains lineage passed on with the water. Myself and some others in here, we see this verse meaning the giants were before and after the flood. I cannot believe the fathers of these translated versions were so far off in the greek grammer as to not state what is and not what isnt. In a post I wrote this: Dare we read Jude 1:6,7 again? v6- "And the angels who did not keep their proper domain, but left their own abode, He has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of the great day;" v7- "as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vegence of eternal fire." Lets dig now and see what could be AN answer (not The) to the issue at hand. 6a- "And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation,..." "estate" - Pg 207 Notes (5) In Jude 6 'arche', (is defined) principality, Revised Version and KJV 'principality' According to Vines: Pg 488 Last paragraph (arche), In Jude 6, RV, it signifies, not the first estate of fallen angels (as KJV), but their authoritative power, "their own" indicating that which had been assigned to them by God, which they left, aspiring to prohibited conditions. See: Begin. Pg 58 B.Noun - Begin(arche) is defined as a verb - "to be first" 6b- "but left their own habitation,..." "habitation" Vines Dict: Pg 286 1. oiketerion, is used in Jude 6, of the heavenly region appointed by God as the dwelling place of the angels. Would this be a safe variation of v6 ? "And the angels who voluntarily decided to dismiss their authoritative position assigned by God, knowing full well of the prohibitive conditions. They left their dwelling place (heaven). He(God) had these angels reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day." v7 - "Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner,..." KJV "as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them IN A SIMILAR MANNER TO THESE..." NKJV In the NKJV vs6 ends with a semi-colon (;) and verse 7 begins, "as". A semi-colon tells us, co-ordinate clauses having a relationship in meaning not explicity stated are being seperated. I guess you can say, what was just stated is being defined a little bit better. Here in the Bible the writer is using S and G as a point of reference to what was just stated. In the KJV v7 starts out, "Even as" "As" simply defined. Same, just like. so vs7 tells us... "Just like S/G and the cities around them IN LIKE MANNER(KJV)...IN A SIMILAR MANNER TO THESE(NKJV)..." In the New American Standard Bible (NASB), vs7 reads, "Just as S/G and the cities around them, since they as in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example, in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire." What may we see is being stated here? Did the angels in vs 6 knowing full well the outcome of their exploits leave their original place of authority and their home to partake of the flesh? Or have I "read into" the definitions as laid out by my Vine's Dictionary? In all the versions I have at my disposal(8) the cross references to vs 6 are all the same. 2Pet2:4 1Tim5:21 Job 1:6 Gen3:24 Your response was solely saying I am not in left field. But you never really addressed how the Vines defines these verses. Truly I am not trying to beat a dead horse. For me and some others, until we are compelled otherwise...the horse is still alive and so is the salmon still swimming upstream. It would seem your horse and salmon is dead. Which is too bad. I refer back to Titus 1:9 again for you. Should we STOP ?? *shalom* the Disciple |
||||||
31 | The Sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4 | Genesis | The Disciple | 32142 | ||
Jesusman, Your Hebrews 1 take on angels and sons... The Lord is making reference to which of the angels has he called SON....not "a son". So does not your arguement become a moot point? the Disciple |
||||||
32 | The Sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4 | Genesis | The Disciple | 32106 | ||
Hank, what is your point ?? LOL the words Jesus used were very biting indeed. I sit here corrected...thank you..."troublemaker".! LOL D |
||||||
33 | The Sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4 | Genesis | The Disciple | 32104 | ||
Radioman, IF you would. I sent a note to a reply I thought was from you. My apologies for not getting it to you first. please look at the post "kalos" sent on Thur 1/24/02 ..10:53pm my reply was meant for you, because I thought it was you that sent it....LOL |
||||||
34 | The Sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4 | Genesis | The Disciple | 32103 | ||
Jesusman, I found some of your posts to be insightful, but not to the point of changing my position. No compelling evidence of Cain's line being that which is discussed. Contrivance to the Cain lineage isnt emphatic. Contrivance for the "angels" bent isnt emphatic either.(But more compelling than the Cain theory.) The "angel" theory helps with a few Hard to Reason - verses - as seen in Job, 2Pet, Jude etc. How does it help???? Well, It would answer my question I had about Gen6:4, "...in those days, and also afterward..." How could the line of Cain continue "afterward"? Or is "afterward" not a reference to the Wrath coming?? (Flood) The Sons of God being angels could return "afterward", they werent destroyed. Job 1, The worship/church meetings you suggest arent compelling either. The paragraphs designate references of time and of an occurance related only by WHOM it was about. (JOB) You never mentioned my reference to Satan answering the Lord from where he came... If he came FROM the earth...did he now come TO the earth "to present himself to the Lord"? I apologize if I havent read ALL of your posts on this subject in other areas of the Forum, but I have yet to hear your view on these few I have stated. Titus 1:9, "holding fast the faithful word as he has been taught, that he may be able, by sound doctrine, both to exhort and CONVINCE (convict) those who contradict." If we aspire to be elders, then let us continue?? *shalom* the Disciple |
||||||
35 | The Sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4 | Genesis | The Disciple | 32102 | ||
HMMMMMM......interesting, It would seem you are quite a literalist like myself. I naturally assumed that since I didnt post any scripture to base my thought of "answering like Jesus", you would have reasoned with me that I must be referring to HIS demeanor of how HE answers questions. NOT just WHAT HE answered. I sent that PS after reading some of your posts on wranglings of others and also of issues affecting the writers. I figured that since your prone to answering posts in a "spirited" manner.. I would try to use Jesus as our example of how we might try to emulate HIM in discussions. Nary once have I noticed Jesus having a biting attitude with anyone while in dialogue. Mind you now....I HAVE A HUGE OVERBITE (referring to argumentative demeanor)...so biting comes from me at times. Then a brother would let me know how I underminded the person and I would end up in apologies. If Jesus ever did do the same, I missed it. But then that wouldnt be the first time I missed something. Like my profile says, I never try to presume to know the anwswers. I only hope that what I seem to understand can help another. I must say this ...your wonderful humor in prose is delightful...I found this in one of your posts...and boyyyyeeeeee...did i ever get a HOLLAR out of that....thank you: A post you sent someone ...last year: 2 Proverbs 1:1 Be not drawn into dispute concerning neither the King James Only controversy, Eternal Security vs Eternal Insecurity, nor Calvinism vs Arminianism. 1:2 For it tendeth only to frustration. The major portion of thy brethren neither can nor will understand the issues. 1:3 Neither will they answer thee according to Scripture, reason or logic. But their answer proceedeth out of their own emotions and the imaginings of their hearts. 1:4 Take heed unto thyself lest thou assay to challenge their pet beliefs, 1:5 For in the day that thou challengeth therof, they shall turn on thee and rend thee to pieces; 1:6 Insomuch that, if it were possible, even the very elect should be utterly cut off from all rational thought; and that without remedy. 1:7 Cast not thy learning before them that despise learning of any kind. I certainly hope we can continue in some kindly dialogue while we are in here over issues that are stirred up ... *SHALOM* the Disciple |
||||||
36 | The Sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4 | Genesis | The Disciple | 31839 | ||
PS: Not everyone posting questions or anwsers have had the pleasure to be in this forum as long as many of you... If a person asks a question...answer it as if you were Jesus answering. *shalom* D |
||||||
37 | The Sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4 | Genesis | The Disciple | 31832 | ||
Radioman and to the rest, Granted, this string has found itself unraveling to a great distance. And yes we all have done well to offer self-explanations of the Word of God in the respects of this issue. Which IS NOT CRUCIAL to our salvation. Be that as it may, does it mean we shouldnt delight ourselves in trying to reason from another brother's view on scripture of a non-essential????? If a thread makes itself so long and exhaustive, does it make all our points moot??? I am not sure how you wrote your post, either in a inflammatory way or in a loving manner. I would like to opt for the loving manner. If not, and some agree with the former... then maybe some of us in here need to reconsider why this forum IS here. As for the body of your post...war on terrorism...increasing violent crime...abortion..etc etc....(essentials?) We can find all the anwswers to these in the WORD of GOD. And we can hopefully come into this forum and speak about it... Or reason about it from scripture and maybe even help another brother to see the "rhema" you may have on an issue. ....Lord help us to not convolute your story.... *shalom* The Disciple |
||||||
38 | The Sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4 | Genesis | The Disciple | 31704 | ||
Jesusman, Ive just read your post to our brother Tim... and reading from your text of what the verse says after all the definitive punctuation and nominative pluraling...**confused....hehee** just as sodom and gamorrah and the cities around them....... in the same manner as these.... were indulging in immorality AND going after other different kinds of flesh..." it would seem your supporting the view ive been trying to elaborate....*S* you've written it out just like NKJV did ... The cities around S/G did go after the wrong flesh...just like "THESE" after looking at the way the verse has been written in GK(?)..using the anecdote you say your conclusion is derived...leads me to believe confusion could be at best the claritive. If a neuter can alter a feminine....like angels and daughters of men...then im convinced....*GIGGLE* *SHALOM* Discipled |
||||||
39 | The Sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4 | Genesis | The Disciple | 31593 | ||
Interesting indeed Jesusman, We also see in vs 13, Now there was a day wehn his sons and daughters were eating and drinking wine in their oldest brothers house..." Is this referring to the same time as vs 6-12? or 1-5 for that matter? Then in Chapter 2:1, "Again there was a day ...". It looks to me that there are different time periods being presented - yes. But that all these periods are inferring that all is a time of feast and worship? I dont see that at all.... I only see the author showing us different instances of viewpoints...human and heavenly. Now a question to ask is ...WHY? These may hold alot more for us than we both or we all in this thread have coursed through.... *shalom* Discipled |
||||||
40 | The Sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4 | Genesis | The Disciple | 31265 | ||
Love Fountain, I have a question that has nothing to do with any of the posts in this string. It has to do with your name....It was something else, I saw you in an earlier post. My question: HOW did you change your name in here? I am trying to change mine.... D |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ] Next > Last [7] >> |