Genesis 6 (Jesus, Earth, tradition, beliefs, grace)

[Deep_MindQuest]

http://www.letusreason.org/Doct11.htm The Sons of God in Genesis 6 “the Nephilim ” Gen. 6:2-4: “That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took wives for themselves of all whom they chose.…There were giants in the earth in those days; and also afterward, 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.”The question of the mention of sons of God in Gen. 6 has always provoked much controversy. Did Angels actually co-habitat with humans, or were they the godly descendant's of Seth that took women from the ungodly line of Cain.

It has been the opinion of the majority of Rabbis that this event had actually occurred, and that they were indeed angels. Ancient rabbinical sources, and the Septuagint translators in the 3rd century before Christ all upheld this view. The early church agreed with this view almost to the end of the fourth century. ( Justin, Cyprian, Athenagoras, Eusebius, also Josephus, Philo, and Judeaus accepted this traditional view. While we should not let tradition be the final say in doctrinal matters we can learn from their statements why they considered this view. What changed this view is only speculated but it very well could have been from an anti supernatural out look.

Today their are many conservative scholars that hold to the view of actual angels. M. R. DeHaan, C. H. McIntosh, Dr. Arnold Fruchtenbaum, F. Delitzsch, A. C. Gaebelein, A. W.Pink, Donald Grey Barnhouse, Henry Morris, Chuck Smith. While we don't interpret the Bible because of their view, it is good to read why they have come to these conclusions.

The Hebrew word for sons of God is Bene elohim. This term for angels occurs four times in the Old Testament in the Septuagint version (the Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures ) it's meaning is always used as angels of God, never of man. Most scholars believe this event describes a union between fallen angels who cohabitated with human females. This unnatural occurrence of combining two different species resulted in a offspring of what is called 'giants' in the King James and N K J version and Nephilim in the New American Standard, and the English translation of the Jewish Masoretic text.

Throughout this article we will go through the pros and cons of each view and weigh out the evidence to see which view makes the most sense Scripturally The two principal interpretations are, the term Sons of god are the godly line of Seth (Sethites) the other view is that they are fallen angels.

[Deep_MindQuest]

http://creationists.org/ballard.html Robert Ballard's discoveries in the Black Sea do NOT explain away Noah's global flood

[may]

As people migrated from Mesopotamia after the Flood, they carried accounts of the catastrophe to all parts of the earth. Thus, inhabitants of Asia, the islands of the South Pacific, North America, Central America, and South America have tales of this impressive event. The many Flood legends existed long before these people were exposed to the Bible. Yet, the legends have some basic points in common with the Biblical account of the Deluge.

Some legends mention violent giants living on the earth before the Flood. Comparably, the Bible indicates that before the Deluge disobedient angels materialized fleshly bodies, cohabited with women, and produced a race of giants called Nephilim.—Genesis 6:1-4; 2 Peter 2:4, 5 i believe the bible account of a world wide flood ,and Jesus who always speaks the truth did to

Over 2,400 years later, Jesus Christ spoke of it as a fact of history. (Matthew 24:37-39

The epic of gilgamesh was a very old legend and is somewhat similar to the Biblical account of the Flood. However, it lacks the graphic details and simplicity of the Bible account, and it does not give reasonable dimensions for the ark nor supply the time period indicated in the Scriptures. For instance, the Epic of Gilgamesh said that the storm lasted six days and six nights, whereas the Bible says that "the downpour upon the earth went on for forty days and forty nights"—a continuing heavy rain that finally covered the entire globe with water.—Genesis 7:12.

[scitsofreaky]

Yet, the legends have some basic points in common with the Biblical account of the Deluge.

But do they predate the flood of The Bible? Gilgamesh does, so why not believe it was correct?

However, it lacks the graphic details and simplicity of the Bible account, and it does not give reasonable dimensions for the ark nor supply the time period indicated in the Scriptures.

In fact, The Bible gives so much detail it actually gives two accounts. Is it not possible for a people to add their own details to a traditional story? Detail, or lack thereof, is not evidence of these stories not being related.

[may]

Originally Posted by scitsofreaky

But do they predate the flood of The Bible? Gilgamesh does, so why not believe it was correct?
In fact, The Bible gives so much detail it actually gives two accounts. Is it not possible for a people to add their own details to a traditional story? Detail, or lack thereof, is not evidence of these stories not being related.

Outside the Genesis account, the Scriptures refer to Noah or the global Deluge ten times. Do these references indicate that the inspired writers viewed the Flood as genuine history or as a fable?

In the Scriptures, Noah appears in two genealogies of the nation of Israel, the second culminating in Jesus Christ. (1 Chronicles 1:4; Luke 3:36) Ezra and Luke, the compilers of these genealogies, were both skilled historians and must have believed that Noah was a real person

[Fade]

Originally Posted by may

Outside the Genesis account, the Scriptures refer to Noah or the global Deluge ten times. Do these references indicate that the inspired writers viewed the Flood as genuine history or as a fable?
In the Scriptures, Noah appears in two genealogies of the nation of Israel, the second culminating in Jesus Christ. (1 Chronicles 1:4; Luke 3:36) Ezra and Luke, the compilers of these genealogies, were both skilled historians and must have believed that Noah was a real person

I believe everything I see on TV. The TV says it's true so therefore it must be true.

Why is the above statement ridiculous but saying the same thing about accounts in the Bible not?

[scitsofreaky]

Do these references indicate that the inspired writers viewed the Flood as genuine history or as a fable?

I never said that those that wrote The Bible after this story was written believe it is a fable. But since we don't know who actually wrote this original account, we do not know if he authored any of the other references.
It seems to me that The Bible's version is just an exaggeration of Gilgamesh. For example, 6 days 7 nights turns into 40 days and 40 nights.

[may]

Originally Posted by Fade

I believe everything I see on TV. The TV says it's true so therefore it must be true.

Why is the above statement ridiculous but saying the same thing about accounts in the Bible not?

because i believe the bible is inspired of God but the telly is not
All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work ...........2 timothy 3;16-17 correct me if i am wrong but i think that shem who was one of noahs sons was still alive when abraham was around and he would have heard the story from him, Shem was there at the flood

shem was born (2468 B.C.E.) and abraham was born(2 018 B,C,E,)

Abraham died, in 1843 B.C.E. and shem died in 1881 B,C,E,



Abraham may have received his understanding by personal association with Shem (their lives overlapped by 150 years)

One of Noah’s three sons; from these "all the earth’s population spread abroad" following the global Flood.—Ge 6:10; 9:18, 19

.

[may]

Originally Posted by scitsofreaky

I never said that those that wrote The Bible after this story was written believe it is a fable. But since we don't know who actually wrote this original account, we do not know if he authored any of the other references.
It seems to me that The Bible's version is just an exaggeration of Gilgamesh. For example, 6 days 7 nights turns into 40 days and 40 nights.

Sorry ,true you did not say it was a fable. for me i find it more believable because of the genenology records back to noah in the bible
Because of the overlapping of life-spans, the truth about the Flood could easily have been handed down by Noah’s son Shem (who was an eyewitness) through just three human links to Moses, the writer of Genesis. It is unreasonable to think that the Hebrews, who worshiped the same God as Noah did, would not have included an event of such importance in their history

[Deep_MindQuest]

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/0329gilgamesh.aspNoah’s Flood and the Gilgamesh Epic