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. joeboonda

    joeboonda Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2005
    Messages:
    2,780
    Ratings:
    +200
    On the Nephilim and the "Sons of God deal, There are reasonable suggestions as to who they were. While it is true that sons of God described angels like in Job 38:7, it is not used exclusively of angels. The children of Israel are called 'sons of the living GOd in Hosea 1:10 (see also Ps. 73:15, 80:17), and some scholars believe the 'sons of God were decendants of Seth. Rulers in ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia ofen proclaimed themselves sons of God. So there are many possibilities. The nephilim are only used here in Gen 6:2, and in Numbers 13:33 where it clearly refers to the descendants of Anak, who were big people, but still people. I do not have the answers, but there are possiblities, however, I do not believe they were extraterrestrials (space men).

    Of course on the flood, I believe the Bible story, that it was a literal global flood.

    Sincerely,

    Joeboonda
     
  2. may

    may Well-Known Member

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

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2005
    Messages:
    36
    Ratings:
    +4
    Hosea 1:10 ... for it is YET FUTURE and points to the time at the Second Coming when they will be called "sons of God." Therefore, you cannot honestly point to it as a proof-text since it points to a time AFTER the Old Covenant. You are grasping at straws in a vain effort to change the meaning to one more to your liking.
     
  4. Deep_MindQuest

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2005
    Messages:
    36
    Ratings:
    +4
    In Hosea 1:[font=Aldine,Kuenst,Clarendon,Times New Roman]10[/font][font=Aldine,Kuenst,Clarendon,Times New Roman][size=+1], it is not beni-ha-Elohim, as here, but beni-el-chai.

    [font=Geneva, Arial, Sans-serif]The first matter of understanding regarding this amazing portion of Scripture, beyond its plain contextual intent, turns quite obviously to the Hebrew meaning of the phrase "sons of God" (bene elohim). In the New Testament, of course, the term son of God is used with reference to all who have been born again through personal faith in Jesus Christ (John 1:12; Romans 8:14; etc.), and the concept of a spiritual relationship of believers to God as analogous to that of children to a father is also found in the Old Testament (Psalm 73:15; Hosea 1:10; Deuteronomy 32:5; Exodus 4:22; Isaiah 43:6). However, none of these examples use the same phrase as Genesis 6:2, 4; furthermore, in each case the meaning is not really parallel to the meaning given in Genesis. Neither the descendants of Seth nor true believers of any sort have been previously referred to in Genesis as sons of God in any kind of spiritual sense and, except for Adam himself, they could not have been sons of God in a physical sense. In context, such a meaning would be strained, to say the least, in the absence of any kind of explanation. When we are told that "men" began to multiply on the face of the Earth, and that the sons of God saw the daughters of "men," in each case the human race is clearly signified, in other words the descendants of Cain and Seth alike. Hence the "sons of God" are plainly distinguished from the generations of Adam. The only obvious and natural meaning without such clarification is that these beings were sons of God, rather than of men, because they have been created, not born. Such a description, of course, would apply only to Adam (Luke 3:38) and to the angels, whom God had directly created (Psalm 148:2, 5: Psalm 104:4; Colossians 1:16).[/font]

    [font=Geneva, Arial, Sans-serif]The actual expression "sons of God," bene elohim, occurs explicitly three other times, all in the very ancient book of Job (1:6; 2:1; 38:7), and in each case the term refers indisputably to angelic beings. These are the beings whom, apparently, were created sometime during the first half of the creation week, probably on the first day (Genesis 2:1; Job 38:4-7; Luke 2:13). Twice in the beginning of the book of Job we read of the sons of God presenting themselves before Him at stated times, and Satan also comes with them as being himself a son of God, though a disobedient, fallen, and rebellious one. In Job 38:7 the morning stars are represented as singing together, and the sons of God as shouting for joy, over the creation of our Earth. There are, as well, implicit references to these sons of God in a number of other passages. There is no doubt that, in these passages, the meaning also applies exclusively to the angels. A very similar form bar elohim is used in Daniel 3:25, and refers either to an angel or to a theophany. The term "sons of the mighty" (bene elim) is used in Psalm 29:1 and also Psalm 89:6, and again refers to angels. The sons of Elohim the mighty Creator are confined to those creatures made directly by the Divine hand, and not born of other beings of their own order. Hence, in Luke's genealogy of our Lord, Adam is called a son of God (Luke 3:38), and, so also Christ is said to give to them that receive Him power to become the sons of God (John 1:12). For these are born again of the Spirit of God as to their inner man even in the present life. This is only possible with man since he is delivered from the penalty of death and brought into newness of life through a substitutionary atonement, unlike the angels which, on the other hand, have been fixed in their position as angels of grace, or damnation, the latter hopelessly lost in their state of perdition. At the resurrection those of mankind who are redeemed by the blood of the Lamb, who is Christ, will in their glorified physical bodies, be clothed with a spiritual body, a building of God (II Corinthians 5:1); so that they will then be in every respect equal to the angels, being altogether a new creation (Luke 20:36). [/font]

    [font=Geneva, Arial, Sans-serif]Thus all reasonable doubt, insofar as the context, language, and plain exegesis of Genesis 6:1-4 is concerned is removed regarding the intent of the writer to convey the concept of angels, fallen angels no less, acting in opposition to God's will. This also was the meaning placed on the passage by the Greek translators of the Septuagint, by Josephus, by the writer of the ancient apocryphal book of Enoch, and by all the other ancient Jewish interpreters and the earliest Christian writers. It is apparent that the first Christian writers to depart from this understanding and suggest the Sethite interpretation were Chrysostom and Augustine. Even an appeal to some of the later "fathers" of our present millenium who abandoned the orthodox view of Genesis 6:1-4 because it is "refuted by its own absurdity" must themselves then answer their own patient frivolity of contending that the "giants" were merely individuals of the same race who were "slightly larger and stronger, and more evil," than the rest of the people. By the same token they must also answer why the world at Noah's time was "divided" into Sethites and Cainites, which in reality we know it was not. Furthermore, those who would interject the Christian Church into the Old Testament economy to justify the "sons of God" as being simply believers, thus mortal men, distracts the issue from one of a direct Biblical exegesis to other grounds which are much the obscure, if not outright fallacious. These men, in spite of their greatness in doctrine and theory, were still humanly fallible and capable of missing important elements of Biblical truth in their doctrines. In our own time this opposing view has been widely propagated by C. I. Scofield in the notes of his famous reference Bible. To apply the term "sons of God" as such to mere men is to stretch the matter beyond a reasonable limit, for it can only refer to those sons of God involved in a second and deeper apostasy of those fallen ones from on high.[/font]

    [/size][/font]
     
Loading...