Explanations For Genesis 6:

Discussion in 'Bible Study' started by Brother_Mike_V, Feb 22, 2013.

  1. The table is open:

    Matthew 24:36 But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only. 37 But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. 38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, 39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. 40 Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left. 41 Two women shall be grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken, and the other left. 42 Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come. 43 But know this, that if the goodman of the house had known in what watch the thief would come, he would have watched, and would not have suffered his house to be broken up. 44 Therefore be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh.

    Genesis 6:1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, 2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. 3 And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. 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 children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown. 5 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. 7 And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them. 8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord.
  2. 1: Sons of God-
    A: fallen/ corrupted humans (spiritually)
    B: angels/ fallen angels?

    2: #5303 N@phiyl/ Nephilim:
    A: Giants (Strongs)
    B: Humans of possible great stature?
    C: Humans of great reputation?

    3: #8034 Shem-AKA: Renown
    (1) Name
    (2) Reputation, fame, glory
    (3) the Name (as designation of God)
    (4) memorial, monument

    Q: Why is Noah "perfect" (whole) in his generations? Genesis 6:9 These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God. 10 And Noah begat three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth. Is this simply because he 'walks' with God?
    Q: Why; if Nephilim & Shem mean reputation-why do they not have the same root elements?
    Q: Why is there a clear division in verse 2 with "sons of God" and "daughters of men"? If both are clearly human; what is the purpose?
    Q: If the "sons of God" (being human) were righteous-why were they destroyed? Are they fallen in spirit-fallen away from God and "saved" in death?
    Q: Is Noah both "perfect" in his generations spiritually AND physically? (Genesis 6:9) "Corrupted seed"- an idea that there is a physical corruption in human kind-not just spiritual. Can the 'corruptible seed' mean DNA/ genes? Assuming "Noah" means the man Noah; then there is the potential for corruptible seed from 7 other people on the ark. If "Noah" meaning Noah and his wife-(See: Genesis 5:2) then the corruptible seed could lie in the 3 wives of Noah's sons. Thus accounting for 'giants', 'men of great stature' after the flood. Or are these anomalies simple due to the Earth's reconfiguration after the flood?
  3. Yes. Perfect in his generation means that compared to his contemporaries he was an upright God fearing fellow.
    Where do you get this from? The Nephilim (giants) were bully boys like Goliath. Strong's #5303. Shem (#8038) was a moral chappy like Japheth. Not known for being a bully.
    Firstly sons of God does not mean angels. Sons of God were no more angelic than was Adam who is also called a son of God. Luke 3:38.
    The division is likely that the sons of God were family patriarchs and the daughters of men were simply their wives.
    There could be a connection between polygamy and the purpose of Marriage meant to be between one man and one woman.
    Who says the sons of God were righteous??? Was not Noah alone, the one who amongst his generation was declared righteous?
    Noah's righteousness is imputed or forensic in nature. He was not ever intrinsically or natively righteous.
    There is both corruption of the genetic makeup of people and spiritual corruption. Noah had it, his three sons had it, the four women folk had it.
    Rom 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
    Rom 3:24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,
    Rom 3:25 whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins.

    The potential for giantism, dwafism, blindness, deafness, diabetes, heart disease etc. etc. was there.
    But on the plus side there was in those eight persons also the potential for creativity in art, music, literature, there was potential for scientific genius, great statesmanship etc. etc.
    I just can't see any justification in thinking angels have or ever had the ability to mate with women.. And if they did, just hypothetically thinking,...why would there not be a bunch of female angels. The good ones keeping the male angels satisfied, the loose moralled ones seducing human males? See how messy things get when we discard the clear word and revelation of God and go a whoring after all manner of angelolatry?
    end of rant......for now.
    Major and Rusty say Amen and like this.
  4. I don't see the first verse in your OP in any real connection with your second, Dirty.

    I agree with you (yet again) Calvin!
    Major likes this.
  5. Q: "Where do you get this from? The Nephilim (giants) were bully boys like Goliath. Strong's #5303. Shem (#8038) was a moral chappy like Japheth. Not known for being a bully."

    A: Some of the commentary I have read. I don't have Greek letters on my keyboard-sorry; can't realy make the root comparison obvious here. Not that important...

    A: It was more of a continuation if anything: ran out of time....

    So we can agree that Noah was still a sinner right?
    And that 'Giants' (big people) have existed in some form or fashion?

    FYI: I am not FOR or AGAINST the 'angelolatry'; but I am fascinated by this portion of scripture for some reason and can't wait to see the replay! ;) I am not making a case for angle fornication here...

    How about Genesis 6:11-13: 11 The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence. 12 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth. 13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

    Flesh: Basar #1320

    A: of the body (human or animal)
    B: the body itself
    C: male organ or generation
    D: kindred, blood relations
    E: flesh as frail or erring man
    F: all living things
    G: animals
    H: mankind

    What is the context for "flesh" in this scripture? I guess my overall question is this: was the deluge a result of only the 'spiritual corruption' of mankind; or is there more to the story we just don't know about?
  6. As usual "calvin" is right on target again!

    The "giants in the earth in those days" were humans. IMO it means that these people were well known men of that day.

    The "sons of God" are the Godly line of Humans who came from Adam & Eve through Seth.

    The "daughters of men" come from the human line of Cain.

    When the two intermarry, the entire line from Seth is totally corruprted except for one. Noah.

    Some like to say that the "sons of God" are actually angels and they marry the "daughters of men and have children".

    It does not take a lot of work to disprove that as we can clearly see in Matthew 22:30 where Jesus explains that humans after the resurrection will be just as the angles in heaven are now.

    "For in the resurrection they (resurrected humans) neither marry nor are given in marriage but are as the angels of God in heaven".

    Angels, according to the One who created them, are ASEXUAL. They do not procreate at all. All angels are Created beings, not "procreated" human/spiritual beings. That means of course that it is impossible for fallen angels to have sexual relations/marry and have children.

    Now think about this for a moment. IF these were good angels, would they commit such a sin as this?

    Then if they were fallen angels..........would they be called the "sons of God". THINK!!!

    Some like to say that the "daughters of men" are also angels. That also is impossible as there is no record of female angels in the Word of God.
  7. All the patriarch's male children are listed so that would have to mean nephillim were women, which is not what the texts say. The scripture also tells us that Cain was banished from his family after killing Abel. That is not to say that his seed was totally destroyed at the flood. However given that when Cain slew Abel, he killed his seed (bloods), there is some sense of balance that his would be gone too. It's possible Seth's children mated with Cain's but we are told clearly that pre-flood, the world was corrupt and overwhelmed with evil. So I don't buy that patriarch's children could be nephillim. I either read in the Zohar or Midrash, that fallen angels appealed to either Enoch or Noah to intervene with God to save their offspring which God found ironic. Two url's on the nephillim follow.


    http://books.google.com/books?id=YU...MQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=midrash nephilim&f=false
  8. The Zohar and Midrash are "mystical" Jewish myths and I would not give any consideration to them if I were you.

    The word "NEPHILIM is the Hebrew word for "Giants" or "Princes". So then the thing to do is explain or understand the meaning of Giants/ Princes.

    It is my understanding that they must be human beings that were well known/popular.

    The world was corrupt because of the intermarriage of Seth's and Cain's offspring. The wicked always pulls down the righteouse.
  9. Major says : The Zohar and Midrash are "mystical" Jewish myths

    I would say that you don't know much about these sources. The Midrash is a running rabbinical footnotes on the Torah - sacred text- not mystical. The Zohar has been categorized mystical by some because kabbala dotes on it as a source. But again, if you have not read them perhaps you shouldn't judge. I take it that you didn't read the web sites - the first is the Virtual Jewish Library- considered an official site. You seem to always want to downplay whatever doesn't suit your point whether it be scripture (interpetaton) or other valid religious sources.
    Rusty likes this.
  10. I agree Silk: the Midrash is no more a myth than Matthew Henry's commentaries on the Bible.

    BUT....rabbinical or Christian clerical opinion/theory or morality stories are in no way as authoritative as the Bible Itself. No rabbi or cleric would dream of saying so.

    My interest in the Midrash centres on how Hebrews wrote things, the structure and symbols; it helps when reading the Bible to understand style.....
  11. Well, again I have to disagree with Rusty and Silk. I fo that for a good reason.

    Maybe I am wrong, that will not be the 1st time that is for sure, but it seems to me that the Jewish faith has a much more flexable teaching in many matters. Isn't the Midrash opinions of the rabbie's that could be believed by the followers or rejected. Then when another or better midrash came along, the believers could change what they believed to the newer one presented.

    Now some would say that is a good idea but I am pretty sure that Matthew Henry, and Dr. Scofield, and Ironside would not agree with. IT seems to me that the Bible says that God is the same Yesterday, today and tomarrown and He changes not.

    I admitt I am not the most educated in this field so you both maybe correct.
  12. Apparently you have not read any of the Midrash: to say they are myths (your word)is not the same as your post above.
    Apparently you misunderstand what a commentary is compared to a myth.

    Silk and I apparently distinguish human commentary from the Word of God, whether rabbinical or clerical.

    Thank you for your admission; I suggest studying up before labeling things "myths".
  13. I have to disagree with you Silk. Not your comments directed at Major, (he is big enough and ugly enough to look after himself :) ) but your comment on the Zohah and Midrash. I followed the two links you supplied.....mystical or fanciful...they are pure codswallop. There is so much unenlightened conjecture about the early times of creation and of our human beginnings, but that does not validate mythical nonsense. For instance, after Adam and Eve get kicked out of home, the next thing we read is that Cain and Abel are running around sacrificing to the Lord! Does the Midrash or Zohar have a myth to explain where the idea of worship by sacrifice came from? If not, maybe we could invent our own myth. How about the angel hooraa held survival classes just down the road from the garden of Eden?
    Am I being sarcastic?
    They say sarcasm is the lowest form of wit. OK, so this morning I'm not feeling very witty. (n)

    My concern is that people take Jewish literature that is myth based as being in some way authoritative, not heeding the fact that these writers are from the same stable as the very people who did not recognize their own Lord and their God when He walked in their midst.
    I read of Matthew Henry being used as an example...that is like comparing chalk and cheese. Not that I am a Matthew Henry fan, just that what he commented on was born of his belief and acceptance of the word of God and not Jewish fable.
    Would we take any notice of a Pope or an Archbishop or a PHd in theology who wrote a commentary that said Jesus had his wife Betty braid His blond curly hair each morning before He went to work?....No, at least I hope not.
    We must never interpret the Bible from outside the Bible.

    We have the same set of data that the Jewish Rabbis had, yet, from that exact same set of data, we can not legitimately interpret 'sons of God' to mean over sexed angels. We can not legitimately interpret Nephilim/Giants as even being the unique offspring of these 'sons of God', or the sons of Seth, or the sons of Mandrake. All such conjecture comes from the human spirit that is not content with the revelation supplied by God's word.
    To appeal to literature that is the word of fallen man to interpret the word of God beggars belief!

    From an article on http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/beggars-belief.html "In the religious tract The Scheme and Completion of Prophecy, 1830, John Whitley used 'beggar belief' in describing the thoughts of 'those heathens' who denied the Bible."
    Not calling anyone here a heathen mind you, just looking at the validity of the phrase I just used.

    So, I guess it would be no secret that I have zilch sympathy for the notion that Angels can breed with human women folk. But my objections are based on the word of God, not on any prejudice or predisposition to entertain myth and fable.
    Not based on the epic of Gilgamesh, Homer's odyssey, Shakespeare etc. Just on what the Word of God reveals.
    Major likes this.
  14. From Wiktionary:
    Fable from Dictionary.com
  15. This is applicable to the Zohar, no question, Calvin. Many medieval religious teachings are fable like, in Catholicism as well as Judaism.

    Rabbinical comments (the Mishna) can be in error next to the Christian Facts, but can you call them myths? Supernatural legends? This is commentary (right or wrong), not fable making:

  16. Well Rusty, look at definitions 2,3 and 4 of the 'fable' entry.
    I'm not convinced that the use of the word 'exegesis' in your quoted material legitimizes either of the two tomes. 'eisegesis' might be a better term. I'm unaware of any 'contemporaneous history of the time' that relates to the pre-flood times...are you?
    I understand contemporaneous to mean parallel in time. So the only history we have is what is revealed in the Word of God., and that is stand alone, not contemporaneous with 'Rabbinical truth'.
    Having said that......I agree with you that those 2 writings can be a valuable insight into Hebrew thinking and literary style.
  17. Apart from all else, and not having first hand knowledge of angels, I find it as unlikely that these angels would find women attractive as human males would find a fox attractive. And that is exactly what God's word tells us...the 'sons of God' found these women attractive. So it wasn't a case of naughty angels wanting to pollute the human seed and move on; there was actual attraction involved.

    Yeah I know there are instances of buggery, and one or two who have wanted to marry their dogs, but they are extremely rare aberrations of humanity.
    Yet these 'sons of God' were marrying women folk on a reasonably large scale....large enough to warrant specific mention.

    One night stands to corrupt seed (if possible) would be one thing, but marrying?
    People including the Jewish Rabbis need to evaluate the whole of God's word, not just a few bits here and there.
    Major likes this.
  18. "While exegesis attempts to determine the historical context within which a particular verse exists – the so-called "Sitz im Leben" or life setting – eisegetes often neglect this aspect of Biblical study.
    In the field of Biblical exegesis scholars take great care to avoid eisegesis. In this field, eisegesis is regarded as 'poor exegesis.' "

    But again:my posts echo disapproval of calling Hebrew commentary "myth, fables or legends"; it is the same barbs hurled by rabbinical scholars at Christians.

    My points are that the bad habit of dismissing Hebrew commentary and lumping the mystical Zohar with the Mishna....That's like gluing DL Moody with the Gospel of Judas....apples and oranges.

    I am not claiming an rabbis have any light about pre-Flood angels.
  19. Yep I could agree with you except I have trouble with calling anything that introduces ideas and concepts into text that is not there in the original a commentary, what is it commenting on?. A good and legitimate commentary does not talk about oranges when the commented text only discusses apples.....does it?
    Any commentary on Genesis chapter six that identifies the 'sons of God' as angels and their offspring as giants without having any legitimate grounds to do so, by bods dreaming and writing hundreds to thousands of years later, is not deserving of being classified as commentary...IMNSHO.
    If I were writing a commentary on Romans 1:1. I would need something a lot more substantial than fantasy to say that Paul was wearing blue and red striped socks when he wrote his letter. To my mind, that would be the same thing as injecting unsubstantiatable commentary on Gen 6.
    Looking at the document pointed to by Silk on the Midrash, (page 180) it seems that it has close affiliation with the Zohah.
    I don't actually have much in the way of commentaries in my library, but I notice that both Matt Henry and John Gill dismiss the idea of angels in Gen 6. That is looking them up online.
    So I think I have exhausted my take on the subject and will therefore withdraw from further comment.....if I can.
    Major likes this.
  20. Her link was on a book that focuses on the mystical Kabbalistic stuff.....highly bizarre, and page 180, to me, points to the late Midrashic period , the time when Hebrew life was mixed even more heavily in ever with Gnostic and Essene kookiness. If really interested in this sort of research, I found this helpful: http://www.jbeonlinebooks.org/eBooks/judaism/documents/judaism-ebook-sample-chapter.pdf

    But I agree: let's leave off Rabbinical ideas altogether; it's clear that few of us who have posted see fallen angels as "sons of God", demons as having sex with woman to make giants, etc.

    I think the umbrage was dismissing commentary as myth.

Share This Page