Results 321 - 340 of 449
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Jesusman Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
321 | 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 |
||||||
322 | how do you make sense of this verse? | 1 Peter | Jesusman | 32943 | ||
Hello, Look at the previous verses. Beginning in verse 13, Peter says for us to "gird your minds for action." During Biblical times, Hebrews wore robes, even during combat. Before a battle began, they would take a scarf, belt, or sash and tie it around them, and tuck their robes into it. It aided in preventing them from falling in the middle of battle. As time passed, the phrase "Gird yourself" meant "prepare for what is immediately coming". Then we go onto what we should prepare for. In verse 14, Peter tallks to us in the context of being children. In that discussion, he tells us to be holy, or separate from the world as Christ was separate. Our behavior should reflect Christ's. Then we move on to verse 17 and on until verse 21. Here, Peter changes gears from reflecting upon how we relate to christ, to focusing upon how we relate to God the Father. The main point throughout this particular passage is how we should conduct ourselves before the world around us. Now, let's look at verse 17 in particular. In Matthew 23:9, Jesus tells us to not call anyone on earth your "Father", but to only refer to God in Heaven as "Father". You take that, along with the following description that Peter gives of someone who "impartially judges according to each man's work ...", and you have an accurate description of God the Father. So, here you have Peter telling us to remain obedient to God the Father as children should be. To remain separate from this world, and to conduct ourselves accordingly. Then he tells us that the one we call "Father" is also an impartial judge who judges our actions as well, and that we should be fearful of that. Jesus Loves You! Jesusman |
||||||
323 | 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 |
||||||
324 | 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 |
||||||
325 | 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 |
||||||
326 | 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 |
||||||
327 | 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 |
||||||
328 | 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 |
||||||
329 | 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 |
||||||
330 | 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 |
||||||
331 | 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 |
||||||
332 | 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 |
||||||
333 | 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 |
||||||
334 | 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 |
||||||
335 | 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 |
||||||
336 | Unleavened Bread Prior to Passover? | Matt 26:17 | Jesusman | 32099 | ||
I have a correction to make about the timeline I gave. Instead of resting on the 21st and the 22nd, he would've only rested on the 21st due to it being the last day of the Passover and due to it being Sabbath, then rested on part of the 22nd, and raising on the morning of the 22nd. I got my days mixed up. Sorry. Jesusman |
||||||
337 | Unleavened Bread Prior to Passover? | Matt 26:17 | Jesusman | 32097 | ||
Hello, In Exodus at the first passover, it states that the feast of the unleavened bread begins on the evening of the fourteenth day and continues until the twenty-first day. So, what you have is on the fourteenth day, Passover, followed by the feast of the unleavened bread for seven days. On the fourteenth and twenty-first days, you have holy days in which no work is to be done. So, you have the Last supper on the 14th, Jesus dying and being buried on the 20th, resting on the 21st due to Passover week, resting on the 22nd due to Sabbath, and raising on the 23rd, which was a Sunday. Confused yet? :-) Jesusman |
||||||
338 | Then precisely what is it talking about? | Matt 6:21 | Jesusman | 32094 | ||
Hello, This whole passage ties into the commandment of not having any other gods before the Almighty. It also ties into the idea of greed and idolotry. Basically, whatever you concider your treasure to be, and whereever that treasure is, then that is more important to you than God and his will. As it is clarified in this passage, if God is your treasure, then you will do everything capable do do his will. If your treasure is your money, then you will do everything capable to protect that money. You have only one master. Whether that master is God the father or earthly possesions is another question between you and God. Jesus Loves You! Jesusman |
||||||
339 | Which Philip is described in Acts 8? | Acts 8:14 | Jesusman | 32088 | ||
Hello, A possible answer is given in chapter six. Among the first deacons was a man named Phillip. Given this, and the verse you pointed out, it is reasonable that the Phillip in chapter 8 is Phillip the deacon, not Phillip the apostle. However, it is also likely that after the death of Stephen, that some of the Apostles returned to Judea and Samaria, namely Phillip, and later John and Peter. Acts 8:5 seems to present the idea that Phillip didn't come from jerusalem, but from an area to the North of Samaria. While it is true that the common meaning of the phrase "went down to" is that the person left Jerusalem to go to another city, we must, however, remember that Dr. luke isn't writing to a jewish man who would understand that. He is writing to a gentile, and would use words and phrases that he would understand. Whenever we have jewish related references from Dr. Luke's writings, he often provides an explaination of some kind. So, I think that Phillip was at an area somewhere north of Samaria, and returned to the area of Judea and Samaria. So, you have two possible explainations. I personally believe that it is Phillip the Apostle returning to the area after hearing about the death of Stephen, especial taking into concideration the events of Chapter 8 and the amazing testimony Phillip gives to Simon and the Etheopian eunuch. Jesus Loves You! Jesusman |
||||||
340 | The Sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4 | Genesis | Jesusman | 32072 | ||
What's your point? That I haven't proven myself to be a christian because I like to provide proof in what I believe? If that's the case, then Jesus doesn't have much faith either. He provided proof that he was the Messiah on many occasions. One such passage is in John 5. Starting at about the middle of the chapter, he claims to be the messiah, then goes on to prove it by talking about John the Baptist's witness as well as the witnesses of His own miracles, God the Father, and the Scripture. In Matthew 11, John the Baptist's disciples come to Jesus seeking proof that he is the messiah. As proof, Jesus offers to them the works which he has done. These are only two examples of many that are in the New Testament where proof is given to edify faith. Paul, time and time again, gives his testimony on the road as proof for his apostleship. He also gives proof of Jesus being the Christ by telling his readers that if they don't believe him, then they can ask those who knew Jesus personally. The whole New Testament is one giant collection of proof that Jesus not only existed, but that he was who he said he was. If proof isn't needed at all for our faith, then why do we have the Bible? Jesus Loves You! Jesusman |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ] Next > Last [23] >> |