1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Genesis 6

Discussion in 'Biblical Debates' started by Mister Emu, Aug 21, 2005.

  1. Jayhawker Soule

    Jayhawker Soule <yawn> ignore </yawn>
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2004
    Messages:
    36,855
    Ratings:
    +10,212
    Religion:
    Judaism
    That is not in dispute.
     
  2. Fade

    Fade The Great Master Bates

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2005
    Messages:
    639
    Ratings:
    +39
    Then what is?
     
  3. Jayhawker Soule

    Jayhawker Soule <yawn> ignore </yawn>
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2004
    Messages:
    36,855
    Ratings:
    +10,212
    Religion:
    Judaism
    I haven't a clue. Whether they did or not in no way means that the referenced article argues against my position.
    But not 3.5 millenia older.
    Given an Israelite ethnogenesis around the 13th century BCE, not that long.
     
  4. michel

    michel Administrator Emeritus
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2004
    Messages:
    28,675
    Ratings:
    +2,658
    Huh??

    By that did you mean to say that the line of Seth are also "sons of God"?

    If so - not so, because angels and humans are two different races of beings.
     
  5. JerryL

    JerryL Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2005
    Messages:
    2,601
    Ratings:
    +313
    From your referenced article on "why the Black Sea is not the location of Noah's Flood" (http://home.entouch.net/dmd/bseaflod.htm):

    The 400 foot rise in water level would not cover anything that could be described as a mountain
    I'm very confused how you do not see this article, which claims that the Black Sea could not be the source because a water rise of 400ft is insufficient to account for the legend, does not dismiss your hypothesis for the source of the legend based on your floods not rising 400 ft or more.

    2.5-3... but you seem to be making a claim here which is, at best, an appeal to ignorance. If you want to say you find it unlikely, that's fine (all I've said is that I find it likely); but to assert that its wrong based on such sheer speculation seems inappropriate.

    Looking up some claims of oral tradition, I have one at over 8,000 years
    "During the early years of West African trade with the Americas, commercial seafarers made frequent voyages across the Atlantic. In fact, the oral history of a tradition of seafaring between the Americas and Africa is part of the history of the Wa****aw People, an aboriginal Black nation who were the original inhabitants of the Mississippi Valley region, the former Louisiana Territories and parts of the Southern United States. According to their oral traditions, their ancient ships criss-crossed the Atlantic Ocean between Africa and the Americas on missions of trade and commerce..

    Some of the ships used during the ancient times, perhaps earlier than 7000 B.C. (which is the date given for cave paintings of the drawings and paintings of boats in the now dried up Sahara desert) are similar to ships used in parts of Africa today. These ships were either made of papyrus or planks lashed with rope, or hollowed out tree trunks."
    also on another site (http://nativehistory.tripod.com/id15.html)

    [font=Times New Roman,Times,serif]While Pendergast and Meighan have clearly proven oral traditions can span hundreds of years, W.D. Strong has proven they can span thousands of years. In 1934, Strong published a convincing article detailing the Native American knowledge of the wooly mammoth. The Naskapi describe a monster they call Kátcheetokúskw (present in many of their myths) as being very large, having a big head, large ears and teeth, and a long nose with which he hit people. When presented with photos of modern elephants, the informants said they fit the description of Kátcheetokúskw as represented in their oral history. The Penobscot of Maine describe a huge animal with long teeth that leaned against certain trees to sleep (noting that when these beasts lay down, they could not get back up). The Ojibwa and Iroquois note the existence of a large beast that once ranged through the forest and was so strong that it would easily knock down any trees that stood in it's path. These "elephant" legends are rampant in many other Indigenous cultures such as the Micmac, Alabama, Koasati, and Chitimacha. (19)[/font]
    [font=Times New Roman,Times,serif]Neither is my favorite site, but Google is being a challenge on the matter and antropology is not my stong suite. Never the less, your claim that oral traditions don't last three mellennia is [minimally] heavily disputed.
    [/font]
     
  6. Fade

    Fade The Great Master Bates

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2005
    Messages:
    639
    Ratings:
    +39
    I agree with this point of view.
    It is such a pity that oral traditions don't leave behind verifiable archeological evidence :D
     
  7. michel

    michel Administrator Emeritus
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2004
    Messages:
    28,675
    Ratings:
    +2,658
    Fade, this is so true! Wouldn't it be nice if the facts would have just been put down in writing and preserved throughout history?
     
  8. Fade

    Fade The Great Master Bates

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2005
    Messages:
    639
    Ratings:
    +39
    I think for something to be considered fact it would need a lot more than simply being put down in writing. The 'fact' is that the various genesis accounts don't even claim to be factual.
     
  9. michel

    michel Administrator Emeritus
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2004
    Messages:
    28,675
    Ratings:
    +2,658
    Well, let's try this again. I'll reword for clarity.

    Wouldn't It be nice if the facts, the true facts, and nothing but the facts, would have just been put down in writing and preserved throughout history?

    O THAT MY WORDS WERE NOW WRITTEN! OH THAT THEY WERE PRINTED IN A BOOK!

    Job 19:23
     
  10. Fade

    Fade The Great Master Bates

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2005
    Messages:
    639
    Ratings:
    +39
    Oh, well that certainly clears it up. In that case, yes it would have been lovely. Pity it wasn't.
     
  11. Deep_MindQuest

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2005
    Messages:
    36
    Ratings:
    +4
    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.

     
  12. Deep_MindQuest

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2005
    Messages:
    36
    Ratings:
    +4
  13. may

    may Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2004
    Messages:
    3,665
    Ratings:
    +110


    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.

     
  14. scitsofreaky

    scitsofreaky Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2005
    Messages:
    306
    Ratings:
    +33
    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.
     
  15. may

    may Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2004
    Messages:
    3,665
    Ratings:
    +110



    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

     
  16. Fade

    Fade The Great Master Bates

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2005
    Messages:
    639
    Ratings:
    +39

    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? :confused:
     
  17. scitsofreaky

    scitsofreaky Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2005
    Messages:
    306
    Ratings:
    +33
    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.
     
  18. may

    may Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2004
    Messages:
    3,665
    Ratings:
    +110
    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

    .

     
  19. may

    may Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2004
    Messages:
    3,665
    Ratings:
    +110
    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

     
  20. Deep_MindQuest

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2005
    Messages:
    36
    Ratings:
    +4
Loading...