Results 81 - 100 of 221
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Jesusman Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
81 | 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 |
||||||
82 | 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 |
||||||
83 | 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 |
||||||
84 | 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 |
||||||
85 | 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 |
||||||
86 | 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 |
||||||
87 | 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 |
||||||
88 | 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 |
||||||
89 | 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 |
||||||
90 | 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 |
||||||
91 | 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 |
||||||
92 | 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 |
||||||
93 | 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 |
||||||
94 | The Sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4 | Genesis | Jesusman | 33912 | ||
Hello, As for "banah adam", sorry don't see much there other than stating that the line starts with adam, but then again, Cain's line started with Adam as well. As for the NT references and their meanings being used in Genesis, true, I did use the New testament to prove a point. Then again, the point that I made is one that is used all throughout the Bible, not just in the New testament. What I did was to apply a meaning that is consistant throughout the Bible. As for obedience verses "totally depraved", a person can be a sinner, and still be obedient to God. Take Abraham for example. Abraham was human, a sinner, and totally Depraved by default. He started out being totally depraved, yet he still obeyed God when God told him to go. True, Abraham slipped up a time or two, but he was still obedient. Now, I'm not saying that the "Sons of God" in Genesis 6 were as perfect and obedient as Jesus. I'm saying that they were as obedient to God as a human could be, especially in comparrison to the "Daughters of Men". Jesusman |
||||||
95 | The Sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4 | Genesis | Jesusman | 33913 | ||
Hello, Support? No! Something to look into? Yes! On a side note concerning Enoch's prophecy, it is clear that the Cain and his decendants were sinful. Couldn't his prophecy be concerning them? Jesusman |
||||||
96 | The Sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4 | Genesis | Jesusman | 34274 | ||
Hello, I did answer your question. The meaning is dependant upon the context. Present the context passage, and I'll present the meaning used in that passage. Jesus Loves You! Jesusman |
||||||
97 | The Sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4 | Genesis | Jesusman | 35902 | ||
Hello, To place the context as the Bible was not what I was asking. That's like asking, "Out of all the foods across the Globe, which tastes the best?" While we may have a favorite food, we cannot objectively say that this particular food tastes the best until we have sampled every single dish from across the Globe. As for the context, I was asking for a particular passage in the Bible to examine. As I said before, the meaning of a phrase is directly dependant upon it's usage and context. Let me clarify with an example from the english language. Let's take the phrase, "I love you!" Now, if I were speaking to my girlfriend, that phrase would have a different meaning than if I were to say it to my dog, parent, or whoever. Do you see my point? From one perspective, Yes, Jesus is the Creator of all things. From the perspective that Jesus is also God in human form. However, we must also remember that the God-head consists of more than Jesus alone. There is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Now, when examining the areas in which creation is being discussed, it is God the Father that is being focused upon, not Jesus Christ. So, from that Perspective, No, Jesus is not the creator of all things. So, the answer to your question, until you narrow it down, is "Yes and No". Jesus Loves You! Jesusman |
||||||
98 | Are the "sons of God" pre-Fall children? | Gen 6:2 | Jesusman | 30449 | ||
Answer this for me. "Sons of God" denotes a meaning that the person or persons is obedient to the will of God the Father. If that is so, and also concidering Jesus' statement in Matthew that angels "neither marry nor are given in marriage", how can these fallen angels, who have been disobedient, still be concidered obedient? On top of that, the references you gave say nothing about angels. It says that the "Sons of God" are gathered before God. In fact, show us one verse that clearly says that Angels are called the "sons of God". Jesusman |
||||||
99 | Are the "sons of God" pre-Fall children? | Gen 6:2 | Jesusman | 30451 | ||
Hey Nolan, To add to your point, concider that nowhere in Scripture is there a solid reference calling Angels "sons of God". In fact, Hebrews 1:5 goes against it. Hebrews 1:5 "For to which of the angels did HE ever say, 'Thou art My Son, Today I have begotten thee'? And again, 'I will be a father to him and he shall be a son to me'?" It's clear that Angels are not "Sons of God". Jesusman |
||||||
100 | Are the "sons of God" pre-Fall children? | Gen 6:2 | Jesusman | 30452 | ||
All it says is that angels were punished for sinning. It says nothing about them having relations with human females. Besides, there are references supporting that Satan and other angels rebelled against God. Jesusman |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [12] >> |