Results 61 - 80 of 221
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Jesusman Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
61 | The Sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4 | Genesis | Jesusman | 31099 | ||
Hello Tim, As for the bit about the coma, I was reading a book on Greek Syntax when I posted it. In there, there was a coma placed. I didn't look in my greek NT to confirm. However, I'll look into it further. As for "toutois", yes it can be masculine, but it can be neuter as well. Also, not only can Gomorrah be feminine, but it can be used neuter as well. In fact, it carries a neuter plural definite article and appears to be declinable as a neuter noun. Also, proper names in Greek have a bad habit of being wierd in the first place. With that, and the pronoun rules that it must agree with it's antecedent in gender and number, you also have two cities (Plural) listed by name that appear to be neuter. It seems to fit together. Then we turn to the verb of the clause: ekporneusasai. This is actually a participle. It is feminine plural nominative. This points directly to "the cities around them". So, if you were to put this all together in a rather wooden form, it would read something like the following. "just as sodom and gamorrah and the cities around them in the same manner as these were indulging in immorality and were going after other different kinds of flesh, ..." Again, the greek points to the cities and Sodom and Gomorrah. I may have a couple of places where I could've phrased it better, but I wanted to present a literal greek translation before the matters of making it readable are factored in. Jesusman |
||||||
62 | The Sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4 | Genesis | Jesusman | 31100 | ||
Hello, I must disagree with parts of what was stated. As for your insight into Genesis 4:24, I have not come across that before. I'll check into it. As for Seth's line perishing in the flood, this is incorrect. Noah, being a decendant of Seth, carried on the Line. The Line of Seth continued. As for Genesis 6 not referring to the line of Seth, there is stronger support for the line of Seth than there is for the possibility of it being angels. As I have shown throughout this thread, the thought that Angels married humans is not only not supported in Scripture, but goes against the Scripture as well. Then you have the fact that angels are never identified directly as the "sons of God". As for the Niphillim, the text reveals that they existed at the time. Nothing, other than it being a time reference, can be concluded from the text of genesis 6. The only other usage for "niphillim" is in Numbers 13. Due to the great flood separating the historical context of these two passages, it is highly unlikely that the two passages are of talking about the same group of niphillim. At best, the term "niphillim" can be descriptive in nature. As for Matthew 24:37, the point Jesus was trying to make is that his coming will be unexpected, as he explains in the following verses. This isn't connected to the topic at hand. At best, the idea that Angels came to earth, against God's will, mated with humans, and produced superhumans is pure conjecture and is not, nor can be supported in any fashion. The only explaination for this passage is that it is referring to the Line of Seth which will ultimately bring the Christ to us, as is noted in the Geneology in Luke. Jesus Loves You! Jesusman |
||||||
63 | The Sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4 | Genesis | Jesusman | 31121 | ||
Hello, Not implying to be rude, but What left field did this come from? Your references are taken out of context. Matthew 24:37 The context is that the people before the flood were acting in the normal manner. They were eating and drinking. They were marrying and so forth. Everything was going normally, then Whammo! Noah and his family got in the Ark and The flood came. It is not implying anything closely related to angels taking them as mates. 1 Corinthians 11:10. Again, taking things out of context. The idea being presented is that Just as the angels came from God, so did Woman come from man. As a result, her hair is a symbol of the fact that she same from man, and that her hair should not be shaved off, nor should she go around with her head uncovered. Now, while this is a cultural symbol, it does have meaning for us today. A woman who had her head covered was viewed as an upstanding woman, a woman of good character. This can be applied to us today. Women today don't necessarily need to cover their heads, but they do need to act as Christian Women should act. This is what Paul was trying to say in this passage. He wasn't saying anything about angels doing the nasty with humans. As for the passages in Revelation 12, this is talking about what will happen to Satan and his demons. On that note, The reason why they are to be punished is that they left heaven and rebelled against God. There is no verse that says that angels had sexually immoral relations with humans. All that is ever said about disobedient angels is that they left their natural domain. As for Satan, in one place, it says that he attempted to overthrow God and take charge. As a result, he was cast out of heaven along with those who followed him. Jesus also said, "When he puts forth all his own, he goes before them, and the sheep follow him because they know his voice," and "I am the Good shepherd; and I know my own and My own know me." I wish for there to be more who would properly read and study the Bible and stop taking things out of context. Jesus Loves You! Jesusman |
||||||
64 | The Sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4 | Genesis | Jesusman | 31122 | ||
Hello, I did view you post correctly. The context of Genesis 6:1-4 takes place prior, if not around the same time as Noah. Besides, there was a long time between Noah getting the command to build the ark and the time that the flood came. That also needs to be taken into concideration as well. As for "heavenly bodies", the passage doesn't say that. It says "sons of God". The question is "Who are the 'sons of God'?" As I have continuously pointed out during this thread, the sons of God are first the Lineage of Seth, and, in a larger sense, the messianic line. Feel free to disagree with me. However, the point still remains, upon careful research, angels cannot be the Sons of God in Genesis 6. Jesus Loves You! Jesusman |
||||||
65 | The Sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4 | Genesis | Jesusman | 31129 | ||
Hello Tim, Given the context, and given the nature of the greek language, and many other factors, I'm sure you won't mind at all if I believe that "toutois" refers to Sodom and Gamorrah. For some strange reason, that seems like the strongest possibility. :-) Jesus Loves You! Jesusman |
||||||
66 | The Sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4 | Genesis | Jesusman | 31365 | ||
Hello, No, "sons of God" would be a literal translation. "Heavenly Bodies" is a matter of interpretation. This also goes into the area of syntax and textual critisicm, of which I admit for not being entirely familiar with in the Hebrew. While I am familiar with Hebrew grammer, the areas of Hebrew Syntax and Hebrew Textual Critisicm are areas where I need to do more research. I have heard the argument that "heavenly bodies" would be acceptable in Genesis 6, but this is primarily based upon similar usage in Job 1 and 2, which I shown to be questionable in certain ways. Besides all of this, the foundational question remains unanswerable: where does it clearly say in the Bible that Angels are identified as the Sons of God? On top of that, all of the verses provided thus far to support that angels had relations with humans has been given an entirely different interpretation, one that seems to fit closer with the context. Jesus Loves You! Jesusman |
||||||
67 | The Sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4 | Genesis | Jesusman | 31368 | ||
Hello, The main problem that I see with "Sons of God" referring to Angels is that this passage would be the one, and only time that this phrase is used to mean angels. On top of that, you have passages in the New Testament in which the Greek clearly is saying something other than what everybody is wanting it to say. Take Jude 5-7 for example. I have shown through an analysis of the Greek that verse seven is not talking about the cities in relation to the actions of the angels in verse 6, but the cities in relation to the actions of Sodom and Gamorrah, which are listed in verse 7. Also, all that Peter says is that the angels left their natural domain. He says nothing that even hints to idea that angels had relations with humans. Then you have the question in Hebrews 1:5 that asks, "to which of the angels has HE said, you are my son, today I have begotten thee?" Then you have the numerous times where human believers, either Israel or Christians, and Jesus Christ are all called the "Sons of God". I have dismissed the passages in Job chapters 1 and 2 because of the question of what the original text says. Some manuscripts have "angels of God" and others have "Sons of God". This variation makes Job's passages unreliable in this discussion. Even further, there is the context of Genesis 1 - 19. Up until the destuction of Sodom and Gamorrah in Genesis 19, the only angelic creature referred to is the Cherubim with the flaming sword. To talk about angels for a length of 4 verses without calling them angels, then to refer to them by name again 12 chapters later adds confusion. Also, Genesis 2-3 talks about God and Man. Genesis 4-5 talks about the growth of Man, specifically Cain and Seth. With these two chapters you have names that appear in both lines. Then from Genesis 6:5- chapter 10 you have Noah's Ark. Now, to refer to angels in Genesis 6:1-4 makes me ask the questions, "where did the angels come from, and Why weren't they talked about before?" Remember the duplication of Names I mentioned, how do you resolve that if Genesis 6:1-4 refers to angels marrying humans? The only solution which solves these problems is that the Sons of God refers to Seth's line, the Daughters of Men refers to Cain's line, and Genesis 6:1-4 talks about when the two lines intermarried. It is the only way that it all makes sense. Jesus Loves You! Jesusman "God is not a God of confusion but of peace," 1 Corinthians 14:33. |
||||||
68 | The Sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4 | Genesis | Jesusman | 31369 | ||
Hello, Actually, I have presented the answer to this question. I have given an enormous amount of support for the answer I gave. The problem is that people continue to deny it, even though they cannot answer my question in return. Besides, you asked if this has any bearing upon the deity of Christ. I say that Yes it does. In my original post, I stated that by the Sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4 being the lineage of Seth, then it fulfills the messianic Prophecy made in Genesis 3, establishes the Line that will ultimately bring the Promised Messiah who will bruise the head of the Serpent, and establishes the line in which we, as adopted Children of God, are now members of. By the Sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4 being the Line of Seth, it points directly to the Christ and to us. So far, no one has brought that point up, nor has anyone asked me about that. My whole original post was to show how Genesis 6:1-4 points to Christ, yet it seems that no one is interested in that. Amazing! Jesusman |
||||||
69 | The Sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4 | Genesis | Jesusman | 31370 | ||
Hello Hank, I am all for closing this thread. In fact, it has gotten to the point where I am just repeating myself over an over, and yet my original point still has been forgotten or overlooked. Jesus Loves You! Jesusman |
||||||
70 | The Sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4 | Genesis | Jesusman | 31371 | ||
Hello, Are you referring to Job 1:6? If so, then I agree that it means that what was previously stated is about to be expanded. Now, what was previously stated? Job 1:4-5 talks about Job performing feasts and festivals dedicated to God inorder to consecrate his sons. At the end of verse 5 it says, "Thus Job did continually." Now, concidering that, and that it is listed twice that the "Sons of God" were presented before God, wouldn't that be supportive of what I have said all along? That Job 1:6 and 2:1 are both talking about a time of humans worshipping God? It seems so. Jesus Loves You! Jesusman |
||||||
71 | The Sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4 | Genesis | Jesusman | 31372 | ||
Hello Servan7, What saddens me is that my references seem to be ignored. I have provided verses upon verses, passages upon passages, and references upon references to support my findings, yet the same questions keep getting asked over and over. It appears that my words fall upon deaf ears. As for the matters of the Greek and Hebrew, I am well educated in the Hebrew and the Greek. While I am more familiar with the Greek than I am the Hebrew, the truth should be clear that I have continually been examining these passages in the Greek and the Hebrew. I have been sharing my findings with the forum this whole time. Perhaps you should review the thread, and reread the information I have been providing On another matter, I have done nothing but to let the Scripture speak for itself. I have not "read into" the passage anything which was not already there. In truth, I have been trying to pull the meaning out of the text so that it would be made clear. This is called: exegesis. Jesus Loves You! Jesusman |
||||||
72 | The Sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4 | Genesis | Jesusman | 31373 | ||
Before I reply to this quotation, again, perhaps you should read my reply below. Jesusman |
||||||
73 | The Sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4 | Genesis | Jesusman | 31902 | ||
Hello All, Well, folks. I'm closing this thread. You can continue to discuss it if you wish, just don't expect me to reply. I have presented my interpretation, and have given support for it. Lately, I have been doing nothing but repeating myself. Also, many of the other interpretations are just getting more outrageous. On top of that, I think this has gone on long enough. Jesus Loves You! Jesusman |
||||||
74 | The Sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4 | Genesis | Jesusman | 31907 | ||
Hello, Whoa, Whoa, Whoa, Whoa ... I have never said that the Niphillim are the offspring of the "sons of God" and the "Daughters of Men" marrying each other, or of Cain's line marrying into Adam's Line. I have only claimed that the Niphillim are mentioned in this passage to give a time reference. No more, no less. I said that the "Mighty men of Old" and "Men of renown" are the offspring, and that they and the Niphillim are two different groups. Get you facts straight the next time you try to quote me. Now, as for Genesis 6:4 and the existance of the Niphillim in relation to Noah's Ark. It says that they existed before the time when the "sons" and "Daughters" married, and existed after that event. It also implies that the event took place well before the time of the Flood. The story of the Flood concludes that all life on the earth, except those in the ark, died. So, the Niphillim could not have survived the flood, unless they were on the Ark. That means that Noah and his family were Niphillim, which is NOT supported anywhere in the Bible, or that the Niphillim were animals, or that they died in the flood, in which case it is a moot point. Jesusman |
||||||
75 | The Sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4 | Genesis | Jesusman | 31911 | ||
Hello, Yes, Proof edifies faith! It enhances, builds up, strengthens, and developes faith. Pick a definition! They all fit. Jesus asked the question that fits here. "How can you love God whom you have not seen, yet hate your brother whom you have seen?" One of the points that he was trying to make is that our belief and relationships with the provable has direct implication upon the unprovable. In simpler terms, the way we act towards what we see determines the way we act towards what we don't see. This is a point which Jesus makes time and time again in one form or another. Jesusman |
||||||
76 | 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 |
||||||
77 | 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 |
||||||
78 | 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 |
||||||
79 | 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 |
||||||
80 | 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 |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [12] >> |