ORDER OF EVENTS

[Charlie744]

Thank you very much for the offer and I have seen this gentleman’s video in San Diego.

As I mentioned in my previous post, there are generally two accepted interpretations I have found during my study of Daniel. And both groups have “unassailable” scholars and theologians promoting their particular interpretation. Those very talented folks have spent years of study and research- most might be fluent in Hebrew or Greek! 

However both groups are convinced they have the correct interpretation. 

As you know, Daniel is a very difficult book to interpret and this specific topic has caused similar issues among many highly talented folks... I am sure Heiser is quite scholarly and a sincere Christian, but he is simply another individual with an interpretation on the other side... 

During the past 2 months I have found there are two different interpretations (this site as well as the most recognized and quoted scholars) on Daniel 9:27. I would say that maybe 90%  (just a guess) contend that “he” is indeed “he” and not “He”. There are so many  scholarly papers, books, etc., to support their interpretations — but for me, they have clearly followed each other off the cliff! They may add some new thoughts or two or add their own impressive writing style, but at the end of the day they all say the same thing - and I believe they continued to interpret much of chapter 9 and certainly most of chapter 11 from a historical approach. 

So I am able to try and unpack or interpret this topic in the same manner— and I am comfortable on this side of the fence and I understand and accept you are comfortable on the other side... 

It’s all good! Charlie 

 

[Sister]

9 hours ago, Charlie744 said:

 

So, from a (my) common sense view, God made it a point to separate His creation of angels from mankind, AND specifically tell us we are made in His image. Angels are not purposed for this function nor are they ever to be sons and daughters of God. 

Just my opinion, Charlie 

Hi Charlie

What if 'the sons of God' as mentioned in Genesis 6:2 & 4, were indeed angels?  Would you believe then?

[enoob57]

9 hours ago, Charlie744 said:

The angels were created before man. Only man was made in the image of God - angels were created for their own purpose or mission, and procreation was not one of them. Personally, I firmly believe the angels, especially Satan who was given everything- beauty, power, authority, etc, above ALL angels, could not deal with God creating man in His image- they were to have a more personal relationship with God- something Satan could NEVER accomplish no matter how superior / perfect he was made- he was still an angel- hired help, never to be a son or daughter of God—- he wasn’t going to stand for this!

Scripture identifies them as sons of God
 

Job 38:6-7

6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;

7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?
KJV

This is where God is speaking of His creation to Job to bring repentance from Job and the stars were the fourth day in creation events thus who do you supose the 'sons of God' are?

[Charlie744]

As I mentioned, there are the two main interpretations for this topic. Both sides have access to the same Words and both sides stand strong in their views. Here is a commentary available to all and acknowledges the confusion and frustration among many...... 

As stated earlier, both sides use the same verses to support their opinions... the translations or mistranslations must play a huge part in this.

For me, angels have no ability to procreate with mankind... From day 1 this has been a spiritual war - obey and worship God or disobey Him and open your ears to the deceiver. 

 

Ellicot’s commentary on “Sons of God” in biblehub; The literal translation of this verse is, And the sons of the Elohim saw the daughters of the adam that they were good (beautiful); and they took to them wives whomsoever they chose. Of the sons of the Elohim there are three principal interpretations: the first, that of the Targums and the chief Jewish expositors, that they were the nobles, and men of high rank; the second, that they were angels. St. Jude, Jude 1:6, and St. Peter, 2 Ep., 2Peter 2:4, seem to favour this interpretation, possibly as being the translation of the LXX. according to several MSS. But even if this be their meaning, which is very uncertain, they use it only as an illustration; and a higher authority says that the angels neither marry nor are given in marriage. The third, and most generally accepted interpretation in modern times, is that the sons of the Elohim were the Sethites, and that when they married for mere lust of beauty, universal corruption soon ensued. But no modern commentator has shown how such marriages could produce "mighty men . . . men of renown;" or how strong warriors could be the result of the intermarriage of pious men with women of an inferior race, such as the Cainites are assumed to have been.

The Jewish interpreters, who well understood the uses of their own language, are right in the main point that the phrase "sons of the Elohim" conveys no idea of moral goodness or piety. Elohim constantly means mighty ones (Exodus 15:11, marg.). (Comp. Exodus 12:12, marg., Exodus 21:6; Exodus 22:8-9, where it is translated judges; Exodus 22:28, 1Samuel 2:25, where also it is translated judge.) In Job 1:6 the "sons of Elohim" are the nobles, the idea being that of a king who at his durbar gathers his princes round him; and, not unnecessarily to multiply examples, the "sons of the Elim," the other form of the plural, is rightly translated mighty ones in Psalm 29:1.

Who, then, are these "mighty ones?" Before answering this question, let me call attention to the plain teaching of the narrative as to what is meant by the "daughters of men." It says: "When the adam began to multiply, and daughters were born unto them, the sons of the Elohim saw the daughters of the adam . . . and took them wives," &c. But according to every right rule of interpretation, the "daughters of the adam" in Genesis 6:1 must be the same as the "daughters of the adam" in Genesis 6:2, whom the sons of the Elohim married. Now, it seems undeniable that the adam here spoken of were the Sethites. The phrase occurs in the history of Noah, just after giving his descent from Adam; Cain is absolutely passed over, even in the account of the birth of Seth, who is described as Adam's firstborn, such as legally he was. The corruption described is that of the Sethites; for the Cainites have already been depicted as violent and lustful, and their history has been brought to an end. Moreover, in Genesis 6:3, "the adam with whom God will not always strive" is certainly the family of Seth, who, though the chosen people and possessors of the birthright, are nevertheless described as falling into evil ways; and their utter corruption finally is the result of the depravation of their women by a race superior to themselves in muscular vigour and warlike prowess.

Where, then, shall we find these men? Certainly among the descendants of Cain. In Genesis 4:17-24, we find Cain described as the founder of civil institutions and social life: the name he gives to his son testifies to his determination that his race shall be trained men. They advance rapidly in the arts, become rich, refined, luxurious, but also martial and arrogant. The picture terminates in a boastful hero parading himself before his admiring wives, displaying to them his weapons, and vaunting himself in a poem of no mean merit as ten times superior to their forefather Cain. His namesake in the race of Seth also indites a poem; but it is a groan over their hard toil, and the difficulty with which, by incessant labour, they earned their daily bread. To the simple "daughters of the adam," these men, enriched by the possession of implements of metal, playing sweet music on harp and pipe, and rendered invincible by the deadly weapons they had forged, must have seemed indeed as very "sons of the Elohim." The Sethites could not have taken the Cainite women according to their fancy in the way described, protected as they were by armed men; but the whole phrase, "whomsoever they would," reeks of that arrogancy and wantonness of which the polygamist Lamech had set so notable an example. And so, not by the women corrupting nobler natures, but by these strong men acting according to their lust, the race with the birthright sank to the Cainite level, and God had no longer a people on earth worthy of His choice.

[Justin Adams]

The Sethite view is bogus and dreamt up by Rabbis and adopted by Augustine. He permeated many institutions with this nonsense. Most scholars, believers or otherwise, take the Qumran scrolls to be the definitive and correct view. Sons of God means bene elohim.

The Bene Elohim (Hebrew: בני האלהים, Benei HaʼElōhīm; Greek: ϒἱοὶ τοῦ Θεοῦ, Huioi toū Theoū; "Name means::Sons of God") are a group of beings mentioned in passing in the Old Testament book of Genesis 6:4 . The Sons of God are distinguished from the daughters of men.

Prior to Augustine of Hippo

The older view, held nearly unanimously by ancient writers prior to Augustine of Hippo, is that the Benei Ha'Elohim (Sons of God) or The Watchers were fallen angels in extra-Biblical traditions. While there has always been a minority of churchmen who followed this view, it has been promoted recently by popular writers such as Stephen Quayle.

Other Old Testament references

The phrase Benei Ha'Elohim appears in one other place in the Old Testament, Job:

"Now there was a day when the Benei Ha'Elohim came to present themselves before Jehovah, and Satan came also among them." - Job 1:6

"Again there was a day when the Benei Ha'Elohim came to present themselves before the Jehovah, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the Jehovah." - Job 2:1

In both of these cases, the Benei Ha'Elohim are described as separate from Jehovah, and presenting themselves before Him, as in a conference or royal court.

Quoted from: http://www.creationwiki.org/Bene_Elohim

[Charlie744]

Thank you very much for the response!

This is exactly what I have been saying or trying to say- translations, different interpretations..... everyone sees and interprets things differently!

Once again, perhaps 90% believe quite strongly that 9:27 “he” is NOT “He”... I have no problem recognizing they ALL have more knowledge, education and abilities understanding Scripture than myself, but that does not mean they are correct!

It wasn’t long ago that everyone believed the world was flat.. and many were tortured or killed for thinking otherwise! I have witnessed some fairly strong responses within this forum (not necessarily this topic), and it would not be to much of a stretch to think some of these folks could or would respond in a similar manner if they were born in a different time... 

Many people just do not accept or tolerate different viewpoints.  I apologize for the unintended lecture... I am sure you have seen this many times yourself, Charlie 

[DeighAnn]

11 hours ago, Charlie744 said:

So, from a (my) common sense view, God made it a point to separate His creation of angels from mankind, AND specifically tell us we are made in His image. Angels are not purposed for this function nor are they ever to be sons and daughters of God. 

Matthew 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

Revelation 22:8 And I John saw these things, and heard them. And when I had heard and seen, I fell down to worship before the feet OF THE ANGEL which shewed me these things.

Revelation 22:9 Then saith he unto me, See thou do it not: for I AM THY FELLOWSERVANT, AND OF THY BRETHREN THE PROPHETS, AND OF THEM WHICH KEEP THE SAYINGS OF THIS BOOK;  WORSHIP GOD.  

The ANGEL tells John DIRECTLY he is "OF THY BRETHREN THE PROPHETS".  Do you think that THE WORD OF GOD is being somehow "deceptive" here?  Is this ANGEL trying to "mislead" John OR is this ANGEL just stating a fact?   Who are we to take something told us as straightforward as can be and change it to something or anything else than what is GIVEN?  What SCRIPTURE are you using for this change?  Is there a verse that DISPUTES THIS?   Please, if you know of one let me know because I for one would HATE to be spreading any false teachings.  

I believe that when something is given, like it is here, there is no deception or hidden meaning and I just take it as fact UNTIL God explains it somewhere else.    


4889  sundoulos

a fellow servant

a fellow slave, of Christians: a fellow worker, colleague


Ecclesiastes 12:7 Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.

Do you believe that we were "flesh" BEFORE God put our spirit in the flesh here on earth?  We know our spirit RETURNS to God.

I don't because of this
1  Corinthians 15:50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

This tells me no flesh and blood in the kingdom of God.  Not then, Not now,  AND NOT WHEN CHRIST RETURNS,  as that kingdom of God will be here on earth and the dead resurrect and those left alive CHANGED, leaving no flesh for the Lords Day.   

Please,  if you disagree,  do it WITH SCRIPTURE,  as what you and I THINK or FEEL about it just doesn't matter .  Only what IS WRITTEN does.  

[DeighAnn]

22 hours ago, Marathoner said:

Indeed. We see this truth reflected in the body of the Lord after He rose from the dead. Some refer to this as "the resurrection body" which can be understood as that which is incorruptible. The apostle Paul refers to this in 1 Corinthians 15: 

For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory. O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory? (verses 53-55)

 

It's funny how we READ of Christ casting out evil spirits all over the place and somehow the two worlds and their connection is still completely missed.  We read of the ANGEL of the Lord, the angels here, the angels there, the angels going to Sodom,  JACOBS LADDER angels ascending and descending,  the angels holding back the four winds, the angels bound in the great river Euphrates,  Satan and his angels coming.  God repenting of putting us in flesh.  I don't get it.  

[Uriah]

13 hours ago, Sister said:

Hi Uriah

Yes I am aware of that fact, and quoted this scripture in particular to acknowledge;

John 1:12   But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

 

Quote

The conversation between God and Satan was not on earth in the company of men

Quote

 

Genesis tells the story, not me.

Genesis 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 children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

 

נְפִיל nᵉphîyl, nef-eel'; or נְפִל nᵉphil; from H5307; properly, a feller, i.e. a bully or tyrant:—giant.

 

Quote

The interpretation is in the scripture.

So, yes it plainly says they were MEN.

Quote

They can never 'produce children' again with man.  I have heard lots of testimonies where women were raped during the night by evil spirits.  Some in the occults, even witchcraft have experienced this and spoke about it.  Even some celebrities.   It's an ugly thing to speak about, but it happens.  The only difference is that they cannot produce children again.

But it remains unsubstantiated. And the rest of it, I don't build my beliefs on words of witches etc. 

Quote

 they can change into flesh and eat with us etc, like God's angels did when they met with Abraham and Lot.

Scripture does not say this. It is your assumption, I think there is more evidence for them NOT being able to change into flesh.  And you are building on an event (eating) that is a one time recorded event in the history of Earth. Should we do the same regarding what happened with Saul and the witch? No! But there are certainly places where it is recorded that angels were seen having the "appearance" of a man.

 

[Marathoner]

Let us look at Genesis 32 when Jacob wrestled with a man.

And Jacob was left alone; and there wrestled a man with him until the breaking of the day. And when he saw that he prevailed not against him, he touched the hollow of his thigh; and the hollow of Jacob's thigh was out of joint, as he wrestled with him. And he said, Let me go, for the day breaketh. And he said, I will not let thee go, except thou bless me. 

 And he said unto him, What is thy name? And he said, Jacob. And he said, Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel: for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed. And Jacob asked him, and said, Tell me, I pray thee, thy name. And he said, Wherefore is it that thou dost ask after my name? And he blessed him there.

And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved. 

(verses 24-30 KJV)

This was no mere man yet he had substance and could be touched... even wrestled! Like the passage from Joshua 5 there is more than meets the eye in this example. Jacob (Israel) recognized that he saw God face to face and lived.