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. First off - NO ONE has said the Patriarchal line was affected by any union of a "son of God" with a female human. But why didn't it say a daughter of God instead of daughter of man? Are we being just a wee bit female hating to to think there were only human sons of God but no daughters of God? THINK!
     
    Abdicate likes this.
  2. #162 Silk, Feb 4, 2014
    Last edited: Feb 4, 2014
    I am 5'6" and I would feel grasshopper size next to a man 15 ft tall. So Major (and you know I love ya) you are saying the scripture (word of God) is exaggerated where you don't like it?
    I join with Gene and say calm it down.
    By saying "aliens" are demonic, people are more or less agreeing that there are no aliens.
    Now as for UFO's - I saw one in broad daylight in England in 1997. Two others were with me. We were in a city. We saw a metal sphere. My older brother saw a different kind, at night with 7 others. My younger brother saw the most close up with another witness, also at night. Our stories aren't in any books. Think of the odds that 3 family members saw UFO's with totally different witnesses at totally different times?
     
  3. Silk, I am just saying that what was reported by those with fear and little faith may have been a bit exaggerated. I am not saying it is a fact or a must or a doctrine but just something to consider.

    But if you were in a strange land, surrounded by new things and funny sounds and all of a sudden you see someone who is about 7 or 8 feet tall, how tall would he be when you got back to give your report? Would he grow to 15 feet tall?
     
  4. And you think I exaggerate. The very logic you're using is the same one I'm trying to get you to use with all the evidence I presented. And using your logic against me you're saying that the word of God exaggerates... hmm....
     
  5. I am lousy with spatial dimensions - so I try to judge size by comparison. 7 or 8 feet tall would go back as "up to here" on a tree for comparison and I might be off by a foot, either way. Personally, I would have my doubts about fighting an army of that 7/8 size. No need to exaggerate. That's common sense threat assessment. Now if God told me, go ahead - I'd have no fear. But if Joe Blow told me, I'd start a discussion on the better part of valor.
     
  6. Silk.......whether we like it or not, the days of our past were pretty much dominated by men and the Bible was written by God through men so then it has the male dominated approach to it. Globally, men were always the mayors, chiefs, kings or sheiks simply they could over power and defeat the women in any conflict.

    Now Silk.....IF and I say again IF the judgment of the Flood was against the “sons of god” and they were angels, they would actually have escaped it since they are spiritual beings. Would that not be the case? Then by simple common sense we would have to conclude that they would then do the same thing after the flood as before it. Correct?

    Yes, I know that is an assumption but it is no more as un-believeable as Genesis 6:6 being interpreated as fallen angels instead of humans.

    If that be the case we then have what I stated in the beginning of all of this and that is demonic beings in the birth line of the Messiah.

    “Giants” in verse 4 may mean tall men. The word niphal refers sometimes in Scripture to men of large stature. But it also means “to fall.” It may have a double meaning here—tall men who have fallen from Yahweh’s favor, men who sin grossly.

    Just something to think about, not to argue about.
     
  7. I see the point to not making something "sound" fantastical, as it is hard enough to talk about the clear things in one's theology to another, without blowing up the places in scripture that are not clear. It's possible, that Angels/fallen/demonic/whatever had the capacity to mingle with human women before the flood - my guess is that it became impossible after.
     
  8. The difference my friend is that you are espousing your opinions as truth and I am simply suggesting that we give the idea a thought.

    Please note my words in comment #163......... " I am not saying it is a fact or a must or a doctrine but just something to consider."

    Now, what say we turn down the volume before this really good thread gets turned off???? What do you say?

    We can all disagree but let us all work to be agreeable one with another!
     
  9. No argument from me if that is what you are convinced of. There is no more information I can give you other wise.
     
  10. And "go ahead" is exactly what Joshua and Caleb said!
     
  11. I said what I said about women, knowing someone would come up with that, and all you say about men running things is true. What I hoped would be seen is that the author is trying to classify both who the sons of God were as opposed to daughters of Seth and Cain. And the resulting children. In this sense they could not be Seth or Cain line men.
     

  12. Gen 1:11
    And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

    Angels are spirits, they are not human kind. God told Adam to be fruitful and Multiply. Humans produce other humans. Angles do not produce other Angels because they are created spirit that God has made.

    For it to be possible as you suggested, we need something called a Scripture. We would also need something called a scripture that said something like...... "And God said I will not always strive with man, for his years shall be 120 and no longer shall man make children with my angles"

    No scripture that shows man mated with Angles and no Scripture that says man stopped mating with angels mean it is not at all possible.

    Each seed can only produce after it's own Kind. If it just had to be a bit close, then we could have sex with Monkeys and produce Monkey kids. However the DNA is just a bit off and so no dice.

    How much more with a Being that does not even carry DNA but is a created spirit meant to serve?

    No Scripture means not possible. There is not even one shred of any scientific evidence either. All pics have been proven to be a hoax.
     

  13. Gen 1:11
    And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

    Angels are spirits, they are not human kind. God told Adam to be fruitful and Multiply. Humans produce other humans. Angles do not produce other Angels because they are created spirit that God has made.

    For it to be possible as you suggested, we need something called a Scripture. We would also need something called a scripture that said something like...... "And God said I will not always strive with man, for his years shall be 120 and no longer shall man make children with my angles"

    No scripture that shows man mated with Angles and no Scripture that says man stopped mating with angels mean it is not at all possible.

    Each seed can only produce after it's own Kind. If it just had to be a bit close, then we could have sex with Monkeys and produce Monkey kids. However the DNA is just a bit off and so no dice.

    How much more with a Being that does not even carry DNA but is a created spirit meant to serve?

    No Scripture means not possible. There is not even one shred of any scientific evidence either. All pics have been proven to be a hoax.
     
  14. I grew up thinking, as did everyone I knew Christian-wise, that The Sons of God" were angels - not the ones who fell with Lucifer. I am interested to know more about it because I see scripture points on BOTH sides. And I am speaking strictly pre-flood. I don't know about "giants" and they are not called nephilim after the flood. I could go with tall guys from Cain's line, I suppose. But in any case, I am interested to learn what is to be said - without animosity. It's not a salvation killer.
     
  15. Just FYI the Jews too cannot agree what it means. Only in modern times, like Christians, have they changed their mind on what Gen 6:4 is all about.
     
  16. MichaelH - you have made your point about seed several times. I have already pointed out why I don't find it valid. And apparently you are ignoring where everyone else seems to agree that there are other scriptures where sons of God clearly refers to angels. Either you missed it or are reading selectively.
     
  17. OK, on we go!

    We need to understand that in Scripture, adherents of a religious system were called “sons.” For instance, the “sons of Hamor” in Genesis 33:19 must have belonged to a cult in which donkeys were sacrificed while making a covenant.
    That teaching comes from :
    (Kline, Meredith
    1962 Divine Kingship and Genesis 6:1–4. Westminster Theological Journal 24: 187–204.)

    Then from E. Kautzsch in Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar says,
    "ben" denotes membership of a guild or society (or of a tribe, or any definite class). Thus benei haelohim (of Gn 6 and Job) properly means not “sons of god(s),” but beings of the class of elohim (1922: 418).

    Many references are found in the Old Testament to “sons (followers) of the prophets.” Even in the New Testament, Paul called Timothy his “son” (or disciple). It may not, therefore, be out of line to suggest that a follower of a temple-order would be called a “son” of the order (or “class,” as Kautzsch calls it), including the priest-king.

    Therefore, "sons of God" would then the appropriate name of those who believed in God.
     
  18. I am unclear about your point from post#177. Couldn't it also mean, literally, the actual sons (line/seed of Hamor?). I get your point about the sons of the knights of Columbus, etc, in today's usage but then?...then making the sons of God, mingled with daughters of men - and resulted in nephilim, instead of the sons of Seth? It is never said that Cain didn't believe in God - he spoke with Him after Abel's death. There is no reason to believe that Cain would not have passed onto his children this important info. I fail to understand how that would explain why this passage is put into scripture?
     
  19. I never said the term did not mean that. What are you talking about?

    I said the scripture you don't have is the scripture that Angels mated with humans.

    The fallen ones were in the earth in those days, and even afterwards when sons of God come in unto daughters of men, and they have borne to them--they are the heroes, who, from of old, are the men of name.
    (Gen 6:4)

    That is Youngs literal translation. Nothing in there about Women having sex with angels and having kids by them.

    KJV (Nothing here also, This denotes the sons of God brought fourth something to them as they is the subject "Sons of God")
    Gen 6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare to them, the same mighty men which of old, men of renown.

    How many translations do you need?
    I don't have selective reading, I just asked for the scripture where Angels and humans had children together. No scripture means it's make believe and fairy tale time, something I don't mix with the things of God.
     
  20. Moreover Major, there is ample reason and justification within the context of Gen 6 to interpret 'sons of God' as family progenitors...
    Dynasty builders if you will.
    Those who see randy angels everywhere in Gen 6 should study Gen 4:26 (b).
    When men began to call on the name of the Lord, then by faith, they became the sons of God. cf Gal 3:26.

    I fail to comprehend the justification (if any) for some thinking that Gen 6 is about angelic beings mixing it with women.
    Why do these people continuously call the Lord their God a liar??
    Did He not inspire Paul to explain that in Christ Jesus there is neither Male nor Female? Gal 3:25,26,27,28,29.
    Did Jesus not teach that after the resurrection we will be like the angels insofar as not marrying? Matt 22:30.
    Did Jesus not teach us that He set strict boundaries in place when He created reproducible life forms? Look at the whole of the Genesis Creation accounts and also look at Matt 7:16. and
    Rom 1:20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.
    Do we see Sparrows mating with Elephants?? No!! Niether did angels mate with women.

    Do we see Humans equipped with wings or gills and other organs necessary for swimming the ocean depths? No we were created to walk upright and be upright. We were created to walk in the light so that we were not given sonar equipment like bats to navigate in the dark.
    In like manner, we do not see angels with the ability or the need to procreate with each other, let alone with women, nor do we here of female angels coming among men to seduce them. Indeed we here nothing of angels having gender at all! Because there is no neuter gender in Hebrew, something is either male or female. That doesn't mean that tables and chairs run around having little tables and chairs, it just presupposes that people have a bit of common sense.
    So to recap:
    Sparrows can not breed with Elephants, God does not create things with equipment that has no purpose, ie. angels with genitalia, sons of God does not exclusively refer to angels.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page