Considerations Of Genesis 6:1-4

Discussion in 'Bible Study' started by Brother Paul, Jan 29, 2014.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Just for our mutual edification...there is a little known 3rd perspective so I thought I would share it. It is called the Magistrate or City-Lord theory...

    The idea that kings or tribal leaders were somehow the offspring of or manifestations of the local god or gods was not uncommon in ancient times. Meredith Kline in her article from The Westminster Theological Journal, May 1962, uses the Sumer-Babylonian epic tradition which either deals with these city-kings as either having been placed into these positions by the favor of their gods or else being offspring/manifestations of these gods. In her perspective, it makes perfect historical sense that these “sons of God” in Genesis six could have “established their own authority as supreme head of a fabricated religio-politico system; then they held their subjects in gross spiritual darkness and abject physical slavery.” Apparently there is a long history of this and similar anthropological developments though out history. Hittite kings were apparently deified after their deaths, while in Egypt the Pharaohs were believed to be divine from birth. The Krt text from Ras Sharma (Krt being the name of a god) tells us of his son, the king, who is called Krt bn il which can be interpreted to mean the “son of El”.

    We see this concept everywhere we look from the early Celts and druids all the way to the ancient Japanese “Kami” or preist-kings. In Minoa, as well as in Inca and Aztec cultures, the kings or chiefs were considered the incarnation of the Sun god, or at least his direct descendants. In the Norse countries their kings were always the sons of Odin, or some other god. Many, like in the Japanese legend, were considered priest-kings, and often performed both functions. While the Roman Emperors were alleged gods themselves, the Byzantine emperors considered themselves to be God’s representative on earth. Perhaps this is what led to the control exercised by Popes in the middle ages who also billed themselves as the representative of God on earth (see also Ivan Engnell, Studies in Divine Kingship in the Ancient Near East, Oxford, 1967). Undoubtedly these notions are so anthropologically universal that they must have had a root somewhere in the historical past. Only though these examples are often used in this context to support the magistrate or city king notion, all these tales point to some sort of intimate union or interaction between their gods and these human beings producing what we might call god-men.

    In the Bible we also see usage of the term “elohim”, or gods, as it is applied to men (Psalm 82:6; John 10:34,35). This word, though used for the Creator in Genesis, is not actually a name, nor is it a word that only describes the one and only God (YHVH). In ancient Semitic languages, even Canaanite dialects, “elohim” is somewhat of a generic title. In the Babylonian as well as the Canaanite pantheons there are many El’s. Abraham called the Lord our God, El-Shaddai, or God Almighty, in order to indicate that He was the only real, as in most powerful, God. He referred to Him later as El-Elyon to refer to His being the Most High God, again taken to be a reference to a one true God, the Creator of the Universe and all that contains. Elohim as it is used for the one God, is in itself the plural of the title “Eloah” and indicates, as we Christians and some of the early Rabbis would understand it, a nature of the one true God, which is also a Unity. For us, the one God has revealed Himself in three personae, but for these Rabbis it referred only to a plurality of majesties or attributes of the one God. In the Biblical usage however we see the term always paired up with singular male pronouns.

    As we study the Holy Scriptures, we see this term can represent a plethora of god-like beings, including angels, of whom YHVH is supreme Sovereign, therefore in Job the angels are called bene-Elohim, or sons of God, while in many places God Himself refers to others as His sons (Abraham, the judges, the nations of Israel, and of course Messiah).

    Finally for some, in a more henotheistic sense, these el- names could be interpreted to indicate that YHVH is the most powerful or highest of the gods. This is the rendering derived by the Mormons who claim early Israelite religion was in fact henotheistic. Henotheism is the belief in one God while it is admitted that other gods or god-like beings do in fact exist. We also find this notion present in many of the earliest nature religions where the one Creator God gives over governance of the creation into the hands of lesser gods whose natures run the gambit from good to evil (such as we find in Nigeria’s Yaruba tribe).

    The root of the word elohim also contains the idea of great strength or power to effect, and therefore was always used to refer as well to those people who held offices that were instituted by or empowered by God (YHVH). These included kings, princes, judges, priests, prophets, and magistrates, etc., who it was assumed received their authority ultimately from the one God, or the many gods, depending on your cultural perspective. These individuals or groups, like God Himself, had the power to seriously affect one’s life, sometimes even to the point of whether or not you got to keep it! However, in the Bible this did not indicate they were deity, only that they were appointed to perform these duties He had empowered them for by creating these institutions and offices (as in “ye are gods” or elohim). You can learn more about this aspect of the term from most good Commentaries like Matthew Henry’s, Adam Clarke’s, or Jameison Fausset Brown’s, or also if one does a word study in a good Bible Dictionary like, Smith’s Bible Dictionary (Jove Publications Inc., N.Y., 1977).

    This magistrate or city-king theory became the perspective of much of Rabbinical Judaism after Rabbi Simeon in the 2nd Century A.D. pronounced a curse upon all who believed that the “sons of God” were angels. In his interpretation, similar to many today, angels were not the progenitors of the Nephilim and neither were the Nephilim “giants” in a fairy tale sense, but rather human men of huge stature, and great power over the masses, i.e., ”men” of renowned. Thus when Numbers 13:13 speaks of the Anakim as being sons of Nephilim, according to this view they are simply describing warriors of massive size compared to the Israelites. We will discuss more about this in the section on Nephilim. This view is also expounded upon by the later Jewish scholars Raschi and Nachmenedes who also give their reasoning for their conclusions.

    As a side note let me just say that whoever these “sons of God” were, the scriptures tell us that these beings “took wives unto themselves.” Now some say this implies merely that they all married, but some Rabbis have conjectured this plural could be implying polygamy, or maybe even that they took other men’s wives and forcibly had sex with them. However this final possibility seems to be reading way too much into the text, though it was not uncommon in ancient social structures for the powerful victorious tribal leaders, nobles, or magistrates, to exercise a practice similar to “the right of first night” we see played out in later European culture, whereby upon ending the marriage ceremony the Noble or City-Lord would sweep away the woman (usually a virgin) and have his sexual way with her throughout her wedding night planting his seed within her, and then send her home to her new husband. In either event, when we read the account of Cain’s offspring we see precisely these two types of sin, perversion of marriage and excessive violence.

    In Genesis 4:19 we see the children of Cain’s disregard for God’s word and plan for the marriage union. It tells us there that Cain’s son Lamech took to himself “two wives” where the Lord had clearly proposed the union of one husband and one wife for life. Then in verse 23 Lamech proudly murders a man and boasts of it.

    Some would then say that this degradation of marriage and use of violence is exactly what is implied in Genesis 6, but I just cannot confirm that by the text alone. For me the idea of “every imagination” of the heart being wicked implies they had become utterly tainted and sinful in all their dealings and ways, but that also is conjecture, we just do not know for sure.

    Now I am not saying I agree this is what the scriptures are saying in verses 1-4 but it is a little different than the fallen angels and sons of Seth theories...

    In His love

    brother Paul
    Silk likes this.
  2. #2 Major, Jan 29, 2014
    Last edited: Jan 29, 2014
    Hello Paul and I hope you are well.

    You bring up a relevant and interesting idea but if I may say, we have kicked this around many times with the ultimate end being the closing down of the thread because of the anger and arguments it created. Maybe this time will be differant and I hope there will be constructive conversation and not destructive attacks.

    From my experience, many, many people want to believe that the Nephilim are fallen angels (demons). Early Jewish writers took them as such and that led to the belief that these fallen angels had sex with human women producing offsprings which are still with us today.

    I for one reject that teaching based on the words of the Lord Jesus in Matthew 22:29-30.
    "But Jesus answered them, “You are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God. 30 For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven."

    That tells us that angels, neither fallen or non fallen are a-sexual and do not have the ability to reproduce. Therefore the idea of fallen angels (demons) having sex and reproducing is Biblically impossible according to the Lord Jesus.

    "The Sons of God" in Genesis then must be the human leaders of that day who were wicked and violent. From a world wide perspective these men could have been city, county, state tribal chiefs, princes & kings despots and tyrants.

    "Elohim" in the Scriptures is used in reference to human leaders in Ex.21:6..........
    "then his master(Elohim) shall bring him to God, and he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost. And his master shall bore his ear through with an awl, and he shall be his slave forever."

    Psalms 82:1.............
    "God has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods(Elohim) he holds judgment".

    Therefore, the judges in Israel were called "Sons of God" because they bore His character in judgment among the Israelites.

    Elohim is also used as in an elative sense in the Old Test. in Gen. 23:6, Gen. 30:8, Ex. 15:5, and Jonah 3:3 and the meaning there is "Mighty, great, or exceeding."

    So then what am I saying with all of this???? IMO, the "Sons of God" are the human Godly line of people in the line of Seth and they intermarried with the "Daughters of Men" who were the un-godly line of humans in the line of Cain. The result of these mixed , intermarriages brought on the judgment of God because the thoughts and actions of these people were continually evil (vs 5).

    There was no inter-marriages or sexual relations with demons and humans producing beings that were both demonic and human.

    THINK............If there is such a race of people as "Elohim" that is a result of sex with humans, then what do we do with the salvation offered by God through Jesus.

    John 3:16 says that....."For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth upon Him shall have everlasting life".

    If that was the case, then a demonic being could be saved by accepting Christ? Do we think that is possible?????

    Let the games begin!!!!
    Silk likes this.
  3. That was not the point of this thread but rather to show a third, more rarely discussed view. I do not find proof of the "godly line of Seth" in your presentation without much reading in but again that was not the was merely for mutual edification. For example, Matthew 22 says nothing about angels being a-sexual (thats eisegesis not exegesis) it only speaks of marriage not sexuality or ability when they are manifest in a human form (again, not to be confused with desire)...

    Shall you and I discuss this? There are resons why the "sons of Seth" theory does not fit (I however remain non-dogmatic on either view)

    brother Paul
  4. I do not know if we will have a perfect acceptable answer for this in this side! Will know on the other side of life..

    Isn't Jesus saying angels in heaven? When angels came down to earth, they manifested themselves in the form of human.. When Abraham was visited by angels, Sarah cooked for the angels.. They sat with them and ate.. And when the 2 angels went to Lot, the people of city wanted to have sex with them. From this, can I say angels do manifest in the form of human in the earth? It does not mean they have the ability to reproduce.. Like that, Jesus was talking about angels in heaven.. The fallen angels are not in heaven.. They are chained in darkness as Peter writes (I think 2 Peter??)

    Would God have gone to the extent of destroying the whole world for this? And it has been something that has happened again (Israel and Canaan) and again.. And happens to this day.. Unequally forked in marriages..

    That's a very good question! That is why I don't believe nephilim exist today
  5. I am of the opinion, once the idea of demons mating with humans is removed, the explination that makes logical sense to me is that of the line of Seth inter-marrying with the ungodly line of Cain produced "the sons of god and the daughters of men" which are human beings..

    I listed several Scriptures that spoke to "Nepilim" and the Elohim as well, and the Aramaic targum, Onkelos supports that view with sons and nobles as does Symmachus Greek translation (the sons of the kings or lords).

    Matthew 22:30 clearly speaks to the "a-sexual" status of heavenly beings which includes angels and those in the resurrection.
    "In the resurrection men do not marry but are as the angels of God in heaven". That sounds very "a-sexual to me".
    "Given in marriage" is a nice way to say..."having a sexual /physical relationship and that is what Jesus was telling the rulers of His day. Do we really believe that He was speaking of a marriage with no sexual contact in it??

    Angels do not reproduce neither do they procreate and neither will humans with a glorified body after the resurrection. Therefore if they are unable to do so in heaven in the eons past, why would changing location give them that ability in Genesis? Nope, I just do not accept that.

    I realize that there are several interpretations of Genesis 6 and several views. The one view that presents the fewest grammatical, historical and literal interpretations and contains the fewest problems of all the views is the one of humans are in view as the sons of god and daughters IMHO. Thus, we would have the sons of god, that is mighty men, who were warriors and members of the aristocracy, engaged in world wide violence and warfare and wickedness.
  6. You may be right brother.

    Yes, He is saying angels in heaven because that is their home, is it not. If at the time Jesus made that statement, where else could He have possibly said was the place where angels lived/stayed etc.

    Yes, the people of Sodom wanted to have sex with these angels because the men of Sodom were infested and taken over by homosexuality and when a new MAN shows up...........? Now, because they wanted these men (angels), does not mean they will get these men.

    The two angels were as males. In fact all angels are presented as males!!!

    But that in no way makes angels able to have sex with human women either fallen or not.

    We are in agreement and actually, the point of these "Nephilim" being open to the salvation of God by Christ after being removed from God's presence because of sin actually says without a doubt that they can not be demons or have possessed humans so as to produce.

    That is just me and I am sure some people will argue these points.
  7. We are told that Noah, (20? generations from Adam thru Seth) and his three sons, with their wives, restart the human race. We do not know if Noah's wife has any blood from Cain, nor the 3 wives. Wasn't the flood supposedly caused by the evil flowing from the Nephilim? I'm aware that nephilim bloodlines are mentioned after the flood.
    I can go either way, regarding angels, fallen or otherwise, having relations with humans. In Heaven, I suspect physical sexual relations are supplanted by something far better. But we don't know. It is clear that angels also have free will or Lucifer never would have fallen. The Book of Enoch is interesting in all of this. But it is not canonical. The OP made me lean towards nephilim=humans of royal birth or reknown.
    Like Major, I have seen threads like this go down but I'm hoping not this one. I find the topic very interesting.
  8. The sin of Sodom is not really defined but has become so much later in history. It is said that Sodom and Gomorrah practiced fertility rites to the local deities.
  9. Silk, consider Genesis 19:5.......
    " And they called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know them.”

    In light of Gen. 4:1 ...."Know" is translated as, "Carnal sexual knowledge". Therefore in Gen. 19, it is clearly the sin of homosexuality.

    Notice Gen. 19:4......
    "But before they lay down, the MEN of the city.........."
  10. I am unsure of what the fertility practices were then but am pretty sure they included women participants. God did not destroy these cities because of wanting to know angels, but because 10 good men could not be found. The place was infested with sins of all kinds.
  11. No arguments from me dear lady. I am sure that the whole city was involved in some of the most wicked things that could be thought up hence the total devastation. It just seems to me that according to those Scriptures I gave, homosexuality was right up there as the leader of perversions.
  12. Well, I am "straight" so I'm not sure this is my argument but I have had many friends, whom I loved and felt were good people. Many say they were born that way and I cannot say that God makes errors. What I can say, even to them, is in my view, the "mileau" is deeply tangled with sin/evil. But so is everybody elses. Back in the times of the OT, it was no worse a sin than masturbation (wasting seed). In the time of the OT, you hear of the 10 good men but what if the same city contained 100 good women (never mind "innocent children). The text here is so "men on men" that I think it might be dangerous to interpet "homosexuality". If this was fertility rites - well there is only one way to get those.
  13. Julius Africanus (not till around 200 A.D.) appears to be the first to mention this perspective, it was really Augustine of Hippo in his book, The City of God, who developed this idea, insisting that since Adam was a son of God, and Seth was his son who also followed and sought after God, thus Seth and his line are to be considered sons of God (Luke 3:38). But is this reasoning sound? Adam was indeed a son of God but the word of God makes it perfectly clear (to draw a distinction I am sure) that Seth was made in likeness and the image of the fallen Adam (Genesis 5:3).

    Augustine was also first postulated that the daughters of men were the ungodly daughters of Cain (though the text does not say this) and their intermarriage corrupted the true religion and worship of Yah (the Lord). However, the Bible says daughters of “adam” not of Cain, so why should we make this unsubstantiated leap.

    Augustine said, “Many persons affirm that they have had the experience, or have heard from such as have experienced it, that the Satyrs and Fauns, whom the common folk call incubi, have often presented themselves before women, and have sought and procured intercourse with them. Hence it is folly to deny it. But God’s holy angels could not fall in such fashion before the deluge. Hence by the sons of God are to be understood the sons of Seth, who were good; while by the daughters of men the Scripture designates those who sprang from the race of Cain. Nor is it to be wondered at that giants should be born of them; for they were not all giants, albeit there were many more before than after the deluge.”

    But who speaks or compares anywhere to Incubi, Satyrs, or Fauns? And if at all true what happened to the daughters of Seth and the sons of Cain…were they not also destroyed? So since ZERO mention is made of either Seth or Cain why impose on the text what IS NOT there? And if okay to impose what we imagine into a text here then why resist those who impose their imagination into the text elsewhere (now Mormon’s, JWs, Gnostics, etc., are all justified for they are merely doing the exact same thing).

    How can Augustine know that certain orders of angels “could not fall in such a fashion”? Was he omniscient? I think not! We know that some angels can assume human forms. The form (or body) of a man has the capability. There is nothing in Scripture that limits ALL orders of angels to only taking on such a form when the Lord commands it. It is therefore just as possible that perhaps these Watchers as they are called in the popular literature could have in fact had this ability of their own free will (unless you are a Calvinist in which case you would refuse this possibility though without reason).

    At this juncture those who support this view usually revert to one of two scriptures which they claim supports their view by declaring that angels when manifest cannot have sexual intercourse:

    Matthew 22: 30 reads, “For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven”, and

    Luke 20:34-36 reads, “Jesus answered and said to them, “The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage. But those who are counted worthy to attain that age, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage; nor can they die anymore, for they are equal to the angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection.”

    They say these scriptures infer that angels do not, and some say “cannot”, have sexual intercourse, but that is not what is actually being said here? No! The two passages only say that they do not marry, but when we dig into the Old Testament we find that nowhere in any root word translated “to marry” from the ancient Hebrew can one derive a meaning equal to having sexual intercourse. Plus many people (who are obviously capable) have sex and do not marry. Even from early on, people who were not married were having intercourse. Now granted this was not God’s will for man but it nonetheless was and still is a fact.

    The root words all mean things like “to rule over or with, to own, to inhabit or cohabit with”, etc.Not one word I could find in my Lexicons is automatically equated with having sex! Therefore, it is quite possible, though the Bible is silent on the matter, that when angels are manifest in a physical form (which almost always is male as far as we can see, with the possible exception of one verse in Zechariah 5) that they actually are capable of having intercourse and even marrying, but it is just that they normally would never do it or desire to do so.

    From this centuries later eisegesis (reading into), those who accept it derive all sorts of other speculations like angels are neuter gender, or asexual, or when manifest they have no genitalia (like a Ken doll), etc., but we actually have no idea whatsoever that these things are true, OR as to what they are capable of. We only know what little the Bible alludes to and it simply does not discuss these matters.

    The Luke passage, as well as John 1, implies that the sons of the resurrection (the saved or elect), having been born from above as new creatures in Christ, are called “sons of God.” If this title requires being born of His Spirit, and since Christ had not yet come, then people before the flood (even those of Seth in the likeness and image of fallen Adam) were not yet born from above (before Christ came), and thus it seems unlikely that the sons of Seth could quite qualify for this title, but that is conjecture on my part.

    Prior to Christ, the only mention or use of this phrase, “sons of God” refers directly to angels and appears to only imply angels and based on these four or five uses there is nothing to indicate a class of men.

    So in my humble opinion, though this Augustinian camp uses these New Covenant scriptures to indicate sexual intercourse (and many pagans and Christians have or have had sex outside of marriage), we also must ask what it means to be born of His Spirit, and whether or not this can be applied to pre-flood people (who it is said every imagination of their heart was only evil continually) or even to pre-Christian saints? The traditional view regarding their temporary state following physical death was that they go to an area of Sheol/Hades called by the Rabbis “Abrahams Bosom” where we see Lazarus in Luke 16. Traditionally, they allegedly remained there until after Jesus crucifixion, when He went there and set the righteous dead free, this being a common application of Paul’s reference to Psalm 68 in Ephesians 4. IF they had been born of God, I believe scripture indicates they would have been ushered directly into His presence (being absent from the body).

    Allegedly, all the people of faith, before the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, who believed in and placed there hope in the Lord’s redemptive promise (Genesis 3:15) were saved, but in an as yet future sense dependent on the seed of the woman eventually coming and bruising the head of the serpent. If this is sound then the sons of Seth cannot rightly be considered as “sons of God.” However others see it as once the redemptive price was paid, the righteous captives were set free and entered heaven until the resurrection, while the unrighteous captivity are now led to their final holding place until the judgment. Again either is plausible and we just cannot know.

    Another problem with this “sons of Seth” view however is its late development. It appears to have been a compromise to soften the effect of Julian the apostate, and others, who were teaching that the “angels” were absurd. However, up until that time, the primary supernatural view had always been believed even by all Jewish scholars and Rabbis (until after the 2nd century A.D. as indicated), and was still believed by all the early Christians (as far as the writings we now have indicate) who had been taught by those instructed by the Apostles.

    A third problem with this view is that nowhere in Genesis, or anywhere else in the Bible for that matter, are the sons of Seth referred to as “sons of God”. Likewise, nowhere in the Bible are the “daughters of men” specifically a reference to “daughters of Cain”. According to the actual wording, these could well have been any women including the daughters of the Sethites.

    Finally, aside from Genesis 6, in every other place where this specific concept is used in the Old Testament, it is clearly speaking of only angels (see Job 1:6, 2:1, 38:7; Psalm 89:6, 103:20; Daniel 3:25) and not of human beings in any sense.

    Now then, another problem appears in the words themselves. The first phrase is beni ha’Elohim, and the second is literally “daughters of Adam”. From the actual words, it would appear, IF this interpretation is correct, then Seth himself is Elohim (of whose sons it is speaking) and Cain would become Adam. But weren’t the daughters of Seth also the daughters of Adam? If not, then where were they more formerly considered the daughters of Elohim (Sethite), and why were they not mentioned or spoken of? If they not affected by this corruption plot, then why would they also have to die in the flood? If the daughters of Seth were also among “daughters of men” then this makes sense, otherwise the phrase does not make sense because it excludes them and they should have been spared.

    So there are just too many unanswerable questions if we adopt this view. In my humble opinion these later men were clearly eisegeting just as they must do to make the Matthew and Luke text speak of sex or sexual capability. They clearly were reading into the text what they had pre-conceived as the most humanly reasonable alternative explanation for that which their minds were incapable of accepting! We likewise should at least admit that, they did so without any actual support from the word of God for their translational adaptation.

    Modern Biblical scholarship mostly accepts this view citing these men as their most historically ancient sources, but is it really appropriate to just assume all the rest of Christian scholarship before them was simply ignorant of what we were supposed to believe when they had been instructed by the Apostles? It seems to me that either of the other two views makes more sense, and both are founded on a much more sure historically sound foundation.

    Please consider this evidence

    In His love

    Brother Paul
  14. I loved this post! But now I am confused - are nephilim the result of angel or renowned human being?
  15. As a;ready stated...we will never know for sure until we know even as we are known...
  16. Excellent work Paul. I can see that you put a lot of effort into your post.

    However, I for one can not accept the premise of fallen angels all of a sudden becoming human enough to carry out the sexual act.
    Angels, whether fallen or not, and I am happy to concede they can appear in human form, are spirit beings. They have no bodies. Most of the time we all remember this, though here some seem to forget. Because angels are spirit beings they are not equipped to consummate a marriage and to sire offspring. Demons can do all sorts of shocking and even frightening things. This, however, is not one of them. They can’t bring forth giants because they simply can’t bring forth.

    Now, everyone is welcome to disagree with the ole Major and we will still be friends, and I will not argue the point, but it seems to me that we as humans have this inbred problem with "Romance". By that I mean IMO, it seems that man, because of his romantically way of looking at reality at times, tends to come up with things that sound really good but overlook the simple explanation. What sells seems to replace what is mundane when the mundane is simple and easy. That is why we add sex to all of the advertisements we sell to sell our products. SEX sells. CONSPERIECY sells.

    Now I, and the others who believe that all of this in Genesis 6 about "sons of God" and "daughters of men" are simply the intermarrying of two lines of human beings is admittedly tame to that of demons, and fallen angels having sex with women and then these "giants" walking the earth. Good stuff for books that is for sure.

    But it has been said before and I do not remember who or when but.........
    "Sometimes the best answer is the simple one that makes the most sense."

    When we read and consider the whole context in the previous chapters of Genesis, we are given a glimpse of two competing lines, the godly line of Seth and the wicked line of Cain, human beings. Now we may choose to ignore it, but it non the less is there for us to see. No where do we see any conversation in previous chapters about fallen angels in the context leading up to chapter 6.

    Having established the plan in the garden, after affirming that there would be a constant struggle between the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent we see pictures of each of these armies. We see Seth’s line about the business of exercising dominion, in submission to the Lord. We see Cain’s line dishonoring the law of God and making names for themselves.

    But the future is not mere co-existence between the two lines. The story builds toward the great crisis of Noah’s flood that we see in Genesis chapter 6. The great change, what creates the great downward spiral of humanity on the earth is that the two lines come together as one. That is, the godly line of Seth, the sons of God, seeing how attractive are the daughters of men, the wicked line of Cain, decide to take them as wives.

    The end result, however, isn’t mere dilution. It’s not that the now joined line becomes morally lukewarm, but that evil spreads, grows, deepens. Chuck Swindoll reminds us, if you drop a white glove in the mud, the mud doesn’t get all glovey and white.
  17. Silk......I hear you, but how do YOU then explain Gen. 19:5,
    " And they called to Lot, “Where are the MEN who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know them.”
  18. I know it's nitpicky, but the OT is notorious for leaving women out of the scripture, and surely it was "man as master" back then, so we don't know if women were part of the crowd or the "we may know them " means the women participants wanted to know them. Fertility dieties back then were worshipped for the ability to create new crops and children. Even back then, I imagine, they knew same gender didn't create that.
  19. I understand and it may be true that women were involved in the crowd. It is also true that women were not spoken in all instances but IMO I do not think that is the case here. I believe that "men" in Gen. 19:4 = MEN, not women and men.

    In The KJV translation, the verse talks about "the men of Sodom," -- that is, a male group.

    The NIV implies that Lot was faced by an all-male mob consisting of every man and boy in Sodom; no females of any age were in view.

    I am not arguing, just wanting us to be aware of all the ramifications.
  20. I'm not arguing either, I am simply noting that back in that time, the men were the leaders and women had no voice. Actually I prefer that it was all male that caused that catastrophe but my common sense says different. Never-the-less, the "fate" was already decided and the angels were there to save Lot and his family, for, IMO, the sake of Abraham. It's a wierd story, let's face it: Lot offers his virgin daughters, which are not accepted (not as good looking as angels?) And after, Lot gets drunk and impregnates the daughters.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page