Considerations Of Genesis 6:1-4

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.

But now we are the sons of God (no longer sons and daughters of Adam...the first Adam)...hence forth after being born from above, we are "spirit beings" in this world but not of it...we are spirit beings temporarily dwelling in these tents, which are wearing out (in my case more swiftly lately as I am getting closer to going home)...spirit beings in flesh bodies that can procreate...Hmmm...who woulda'thought?

It's all good...I can defend your position as well. As I said, bottom line is I will not be dogmatic on this point, but it is odd that no one held this view in the church for nearly 300 years. Whether when I know even as I am known it turns out to be theory 1, 2, or 3 it matters not, but it is interesting to explore and discuss all the possibilities. After all the majority of presentations on this tradition are apocryphal in nature and Jesus Himself apparently never taught about it, as far as we know, but their is a long and unending history of those holding the "angels" manifest view.

In His love

brother Paul
 
But now we are the sons of God (no longer sons and daughters of Adam...the first Adam)...hence forth after being born from above, we are "spirit beings" in this world but not of it...we are spirit beings temporarily dwelling in these tents, which are wearing out (in my case more swiftly lately as I am getting closer to going home)...spirit beings in flesh bodies that can procreate...Hmmm...who woulda'thought?

It's all good...I can defend your position as well. As I said, bottom line is I will not be dogmatic on this point, but it is odd that no one held this view in the church for nearly 300 years. Whether when I know even as I am known it turns out to be theory 1, 2, or 3 it matters not, but it is interesting to explore and discuss all the possibilities. After all the majority of presentations on this tradition are apocryphal in nature and Jesus Himself apparently never taught about it, as far as we know, but their is a long and unending history of those holding the "angels" manifest view.

In His love

brother Paul

No argument from me Paul. As you said and I agree, we will find out a lot of things when we get to heaven won't we?

I have thought long and hard over the years about the "newest" teachings. In fact the Rapture was not popularized until around 1850 or so by Darby and then really extrapolated by Spurgeon I believe. I will have to look that up however. Now it is pretty much an accepted teaching accepted by all denominations, generally. But where was it from approx. 100 A.D. to 1850???
(You will be my age one day and you will have to look stuff too).

Was it always just sitting right there in front of us waiting for the right person to come along and understand what was looking us in the face all the time?
 
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.

Agreed! We are just having fun discussing the things of God. What could be better than that my dear?

Makes one wonder why God would allow Lot to be saved to begin with doesn't it.
 
No argument from me Paul. As you said and I agree, we will find out a lot of things when we get to heaven won't we?

I have thought long and hard over the years about the "newest" teachings. In fact the Rapture was not popularized until around 1850 or so by Darby and then really extrapolated by Spurgeon I believe. I will have to look that up however. Now it is pretty much an accepted teaching accepted by all denominations, generally. But where was it from approx. 100 A.D. to 1850???
(You will be my age one day and you will have to look stuff too).

Was it always just sitting right there in front of us waiting for the right person to come along and understand what was looking us in the face all the time?

Read my response to pre- post...
 
But now we are the sons of God (no longer sons and daughters of Adam...the first Adam)...hence forth after being born from above, we are "spirit beings" in this world but not of it...we are spirit beings temporarily dwelling in these tents, which are wearing out (in my case more swiftly lately as I am getting closer to going home)...spirit beings in flesh bodies that can procreate...Hmmm...who woulda'thought?

It's all good...I can defend your position as well. As I said, bottom line is I will not be dogmatic on this point, but it is odd that no one held this view in the church for nearly 300 years. Whether when I know even as I am known it turns out to be theory 1, 2, or 3 it matters not, but it is interesting to explore and discuss all the possibilities. After all the majority of presentations on this tradition are apocryphal in nature and Jesus Himself apparently never taught about it, as far as we know, but their is a long and unending history of those holding the "angels" manifest view.

In His love

brother Paul

Paul, you said...........and I agree
" (We are) spirit beings in flesh bodies that can procreate...Hmmm...who woulda'thought?

That is true. WE as humans are body, spirit and soul. But The angels ARE NOT body, right. That would then eliminate the idea of procreation for them sense they are not flesh.

You know, I do not think that I went to a doctor more than a half dozen times before I turned 50. But now at 65, I have to go to a doctor once a month for one thing or another. One of the doctors I go to, told me the other day to keep looking behind me and if anything fell out, bring it to him and he would put it back in.
 
Agreed! We are just having fun discussing the things of God. What could be better than that my dear?

Makes one wonder why God would allow Lot to be saved to begin with doesn't it.

Rofl :ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO: I couldn't think of anything better myself, my brother.

Didn't you say somewhere else that a white glove in a mud patch doesn't turn the patch all fluffy and white? Loved the description. I think Lot was infected by Sin City, and because of love of Abraham, Lot got another shot.
 
Major Says: You know, I do not think that I went to a doctor more than a half dozen times before I turned 50. But now at 65, I have to go to a doctor once a month for one thing or another. One of the doctors I go to, told me the other day to keep looking behind me and if anything fell out, bring it to him and he would put it back in.

Couldn't agree more with that sentiment. This getting older but wiser? has it's down side. Pssst, you do know what usually comes out the back? (teasing).
 
For the sake of Ruth? :) May be? God would have planned for Ruth and the entire ancestry!

I noted that Paul said in an earlier post that Lamech, father to Noah, was of Cain's seed but my understanding of the begats is that Lamech was of Seth's Patriarchal line. While Abraham and his nephew Lot are from the patriarchs - Lot was never considered a patriarch? Have to go back and look. What I found most confounding (and something they never underlined in Sunday school) was that all 19 Patriarchs, from Adam to Lamech were all alive until Noah reached age 50. I did the math.
 
Rofl :ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO: I couldn't think of anything better myself, my brother.

Didn't you say somewhere else that a white glove in a mud patch doesn't turn the patch all fluffy and white? Loved the description. I think Lot was infected by Sin City, and because of love of Abraham, Lot got another shot.

Actually it was Charles Swindoll in one of his books and I just repeated it but it seems to fit doesn't it?
 
Personally I'm of the belief the Sons of God were demons, because in Job 1 the angels are called Sons of God and in Job 38:7 God Himself call the angels Son of God, also Jude alludes to the angels that did not keep their proper abode 1:6 and also Peter talks about these same angels being kept in the Abussos, a different place than Hades where human souls are awaiting judgement.

Another hint is Paul tells us Jesus descendeed and Peter tells us He preached, He preached to the souls in Paradise He was their Savior and He descended lower and preached He wa the Last Adam and He had accomplished what the first Adam didn't, place then world in subjection Gen 1:28.

As for Matt 22:30, given and given in marriage are two different words, one means to marry and the other means to marry off a daughter, personally I believe there are female angels, if every human has a gaurdian angel, do you really beleive Father would assign a male angel to guard little girls, young girls\women, or women?

And if it was the sons if cain and the sons of seth, they are still marring today, where are the giants like the Anakim and Goliath?

Here's another hint if anyone can receive it, after the flood man became a meat eater, is it possible angels and demons are turned of by meat, remember the Manna? Is it possible that God was protecting man from this happening again?

Also, there is a well documented account in Time magazine, back in the '50's of a Philipino girl in prison being raped by demons ane in disperation the prison called two Christian missionaires to come and help.

Seems to me there is much more Biblical evidence that the Sons of God were the Sons of God like He said they were, and besides, what is the problem in believing that they were?

Blessings,

Gene
 
arrrggh!

My 'puter is having the hard drive replaced so I'm using my bride's laptop and it has a French keyboard, sorry for all of the spelling mistakes.

Gene
 
Yes that was a point in the Journal article...(Lamech son of Cain)

I jangled a little when I first read Lamech but I put it aside, at the time, meaning to go back after the scripture - but it did not stop my enjoying your points. I have often wondered if Cain's seed floated on that ark but I was more or less resigned to thinking, I would never know. Strangely enough, your asking made me go back. My basic reflex is to deny that Cain's seed survived the flood. Justice, perhaps, given that he stopped all of Abel's seed. But the thought of 2 Lamech's - well, how do we name our children? Mother's side, father's, juniors and seniors. Boom...2 Lamech's. And my silly eyes fill with water. God did forgive the first murderer, didn't He?

PS-seriously? no remarks on 20 patriarchs alive at the same time?
 
20 Patriarchs at the same time is possibly a presumption based on a belief on the literal reliability of the generational lists and year/ages (like what was done by Bishop Usher regarding the dating of the flood) not understanding that in early post Noahic culture (and actually well beyond in some cultures) years were measured in different terms, and names of some are intentionally deleted or dropped. And what about when two ages are given for the same person? Also when we compare the Genesis account to alternate Kings lists from other surrounding cultures, we find in most the 7th or 8th "king" is our Noah (in the Chaldean he is Xisthustra), but in some there are 10!?! Who were significant leaders to that group as opposed to other groups? In the Bible the 7th son of Adam is Enoch (still far from Noah) and after God speaks to Methuselah there is an alleged 120 years till the flood (during which is it ASSUMED repentance was being preached)...

So since we cannot actually accurately measure years by this means (like the debates about "What equals a generation? 20 years? 40 years? 120 years? three score and ten?, etc.,) because of personal presumptions it is difficult to say. One reckoning can place Shem alive with Abraham another places Isaac alive when Jacob comes home and meets with Esau? Really? Do or can we know for sure? I stay non-dogmatic on such things. If one believes Cecil B. DeMil and many modern scholars (that Rameses was Moses' Pharaoh) Joshua could not have entered the land until 1200 B.C. (therefore not at Jericho when it was burned down), while if 1 Kings 6:1 is correct then he entered the land around 1400 B.C....(Moses being formerly a Thutmoses minus the name of the false God Thut)...

my worthless $.02

brother Paul
 
I jangled a little when I first read Lamech but I put it aside, at the time, meaning to go back after the scripture - but it did not stop my enjoying your points. I have often wondered if Cain's seed floated on that ark but I was more or less resigned to thinking, I would never know. Strangely enough, your asking made me go back. My basic reflex is to deny that Cain's seed survived the flood. Justice, perhaps, given that he stopped all of Abel's seed. But the thought of 2 Lamech's - well, how do we name our children? Mother's side, father's, juniors and seniors. Boom...2 Lamech's. And my silly eyes fill with water. God did forgive the first murderer, didn't He?

PS-seriously? no remarks on 20 patriarchs alive at the same time?

Remarks?

I have one for ya darling. Many commentators, Dr.'s Pink, Green, McGee included say that the name "Methuselah" means in the Hebrew...........
"When he is dead it will be sent". That would mean the flood would not come as long as Methuselah was alive. The record show that the flood did come and in the same year that he did die. Interesting????

IF...IF demons were the sons of god and did in fact have sex with the daughters of men (humans) and we discard the human line of humans intermarrying with the un-godly line of Cain, then YES, Cain's seed would have been on the Ark.

Now extrapolate that down through the ages and you will be seeing that the demonic off springs of demons and humans then came to believe God and Christ and were saved and are living with us today. THINK! How is that possible???


James 2:19
"You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe--and tremble!"

Matthew 8:29
"And behold, they (demons) cried out saying; what have we to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God? Art thou come hither to torment us before the time"?

The demons know Jesus and in fact bring up the doctrine of Predestination. "ART THOU COME HITHER TO TORMENT US BEFORE THE TIME:??? Demons are not saved and neither can they be saved. They have already been judged, found guilty and removed from the presence of God by their own choice to follow Satan.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top