artsylady Posted June 23, 2004 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 171 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 4,813 Content Per Day: 0.64 Reputation: 150 Days Won: 0 Joined: 09/26/2003 Status: Offline Author Share Posted June 23, 2004 Job 38 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? 8 Or who shut up the sea with doors, when it brake forth, as if it had issued out of the womb? These sons of God sounded like they are in the heavenlies. I've gone through every reference I can find in the OT that refer to either, 'son of God' or 'sons of God'. Personally, I think it's clear that these verses mean they are products directly made by God, whether good or bad, or even human as in the case of Adam (who happens to be the only human with this reference) I think it means that these beings simply have no earthly origin. So to me, it looks like the theories presented here are not out of whack at all with scripture, but seem to line up. We've gone to the Bible. We've done the homework. It lines up. (And thank you Rick, for making me do that btw - I'm glad I did. It needed to be done.) Now, if there are further questions or concerns - no problem! One now needs to go directly to the Father for wisdom and discernment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted June 23, 2004 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 5 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 265 Content Per Day: 0.03 Reputation: 2 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/19/2002 Status: Offline Share Posted June 23, 2004 Artsylady, My purpose in responding to this thread is to show that there is another line of reasoning concerning the " sons of God" mentioned in Genesis. It is easy to attribute a meaning to a word and give it credibility outside of the context for which it was intended. That may or may not be the case here, but either way, it's important to not affix a meaning to something that may not be in the correct context, and have others come to see it as being the only possible conclusion. I realize there is a deception underway concerning aliens and the demonic forces behind them. But I also understand that by affixing a line of reasoning based on a Biblical passage that supports the possibility of aliens, that it would tend to lend credence to the deception. How many Bible believing individuals are going to succumb to this alien indoctrination because they believe the Bible supports it? I personally believe that the alien phenomenon can be attributed to demonic forces. There have been links that have shown a correlation between these encounters and occultic involvement. It troubles me to see a meaning applied to a scriptural passage that tends to lead it to a conclusion. For example the word "sons" has other meanings that can be applied to it. Some of the meanings that are used are children of, descendant of, etc. There are some meanings that can be drawn from to infer angels. This would allow for a wide variety of conclusions. Not just a particular one. There are also many sources that tend to see a different meaning than angels applied to the " sons of God" as used in the Gen. 6:2 passage. The 1599 Geneva Study Bible Chapter 6 6:2 That the a sons of God saw the daughters b of men that they [were] c fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. (a) The children of the godly who began to degenerate. (b) Those that had wicked parents, as if from Cain. © Having more respect for their beauty and worldly considerations than for their manners and godliness. Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible 2. the sons of God saw the daughters of men--By the former is meant the family of Seth, who were professedly religious; by the latter, the descendants of apostate Cain. Mixed marriages between parties of opposite principles and practice were necessarily sources of extensive corruption. The women, religious themselves, would as wives and mothers exert an influence fatal to the existence of religion in their household, and consequently the people of that later age sank to the lowest depravity. According to John Wesley's Explanatory notes on the whole Bible. Gen. 6:2 The sons of God - Those who were called by the name of the Lord, and called upon that name, married the daughters of men - Those that were profane, and strangers to God. The posterity of Seth did not keep to themselves as they ought, but intermingled with the race of Cain: they took them wives of all that they chose - They chose only by the eye: They saw that they were fair - Which was all they looked at. I hope you can see that there is a danger involved in attributing a meaning to a passage in order to validate a belief. Its important to be aware that there are other possible meanings as well. As for ReflectionsofHim, I am in no way attempting to discredit her beliefs or what she feels is her calling. I am only providing a parallel point of view concerning a scriptural passage and its meaning. Which does exist. Under His Blood, Rick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artsylady Posted June 23, 2004 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 171 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 4,813 Content Per Day: 0.64 Reputation: 150 Days Won: 0 Joined: 09/26/2003 Status: Offline Author Share Posted June 23, 2004 My purpose in responding to this thread is to show that there is another line of reasoning concerning the " sons of God" mentioned in Genesis. It is easy to attribute a meaning to a word and give it credibility outside of the context for which it was intended. That may or may not be the case here, but either way, it's important to not affix a meaning to something that may not be in the correct context, and have others come to see it as being the only possible conclusion. Clearly, "sons of God" and "son of God" are used in three different ways in the OT. 1) those who accompany of satan 2) seemingly, angels in the heavenly 3) Adam Now, all three definitions are dramatically different, yes? So we have to look at what all three have in common. Is is not possible that sons of God, in the OT, simply means "not of human origin", or created directly by God? The fact that Adam IS the only human referred to this way, leads me to think so. I think it's obvious that the NT brings on a whole new meaning to 'sons of God', don't you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artsylady Posted June 23, 2004 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 171 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 4,813 Content Per Day: 0.64 Reputation: 150 Days Won: 0 Joined: 09/26/2003 Status: Offline Author Share Posted June 23, 2004 I started thinking about how the 'sons of God' reference has changed since the NT. Clearly, we Christians are now the sons of God", as obvious in the NT. I think this all has to do with being 'born again', also a NT concept. John 3 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. Since Christ, we can only NOW be born of the spirit and born again. Only now, since we can be SPIRITUALLY reborn, can we be considered sons of God. I started thinking about the word 'Father' and heavenly Father - also obviously used many times in the NT. I wondered if God was ever referred to as a Father in the OT. Of the top of my head, I can think of ways He was referred to most often - "Lord, Jehovah, God of Abraham", etc, but did ANY OT writer refer to Him as 'Father"?? I tried searching Bible gateway and there were over a thousand references to father in the OT so I gave up for lack of time. Anyone got some time on their hands?? lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artsylady Posted June 23, 2004 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 171 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 4,813 Content Per Day: 0.64 Reputation: 150 Days Won: 0 Joined: 09/26/2003 Status: Offline Author Share Posted June 23, 2004 Okay, I narrowed the search down and so far, I don't see God being referred to as a father in the OT. Here's what I did. Typed in 'heavenly father'. No reference in the OT. Six in the NT, and some of those are saying 'YOUR heavenly father". As well, I did a 'father/heaven' search, looking for both words in a verse. When verses from the OT came up, there were no verses suggesting that God was THE Father - most verses were like "God of my father (meaning earthly father) In the same search of the NT, 30 references came up, referring to God as our father. Still, I haven't searched the OT in it's entirety. Perhaps there ARE verses that refer to God as Father but I don't know of any yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Calamity Posted June 23, 2004 Share Posted June 23, 2004 I thought, (but certainly don't know for sure), that sons of God, at least in the OT, meant a created being, not a born being. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artsylady Posted June 23, 2004 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 171 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 4,813 Content Per Day: 0.64 Reputation: 150 Days Won: 0 Joined: 09/26/2003 Status: Offline Author Share Posted June 23, 2004 I realize there is a deception underway concerning aliens and the demonic forces behind them. Good! But I also understand that by affixing a line of reasoning based on a Biblical passage that supports the possibility of aliens, that it would tend to lend credence to the deception. You say above that you believe there is a deception underway, however, you then say that affixing Biblical reasoning behind this belief is NOT good? I don't understand. Yes, the Bible, it certainly looks like, DOES lend creedence to this deception. You're right. I still don't understand where you're coming from. How many Bible believing individuals are going to succumb to this alien indoctrination because they believe the Bible supports it? I am not going to succumb to alien indoctrination by any means, but I do want to be aware of what's going on so that I can warn others. Don't you? I personally believe that the alien phenomenon can be attributed to demonic forces. Me too. There have been links that have shown a correlation between these encounters and occultic involvement. I agree totally. It troubles me to see a meaning applied to a scriptural passage that tends to lead it to a conclusion. For example the word "sons" has other meanings that can be applied to it. Some of the meanings that are used are children of, descendant of, etc. There are some meanings that can be drawn from to infer angels. This would allow for a wide variety of conclusions. Not just a particular one. But we were looking at 'sons of God', not just 'sons'. There are also many sources that tend to see a different meaning than angels applied to the " sons of God" as used in the Gen. 6:2 passage. The 1599 Geneva Study Bible Chapter 6 6:2 That the a sons of God saw the daughters b of men that they [were] c fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. (a) The children of the godly who began to degenerate. (b) Those that had wicked parents, as if from Cain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artsylady Posted June 23, 2004 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 171 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 4,813 Content Per Day: 0.64 Reputation: 150 Days Won: 0 Joined: 09/26/2003 Status: Offline Author Share Posted June 23, 2004 I thought, (but certainly don't know for sure), that sons of God, at least in the OT, meant a created being, not a born being. That's the way I'm leaning. At least for now! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artsylady Posted June 23, 2004 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 171 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 4,813 Content Per Day: 0.64 Reputation: 150 Days Won: 0 Joined: 09/26/2003 Status: Offline Author Share Posted June 23, 2004 Here's the last part of Genesis 4: 23 And Lamech said unto his wives, Adah and Zillah, Hear my voice; ye wives of Lamech, hearken unto my speech: for I have slain a man to my wounding, and a young man to my hurt. 24 If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold, truly Lamech seventy and sevenfold. 25 And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew. 26 And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the LORD. Followed by Genesis 5, which i won't post as it is all geneology from Adam to Noah, then followed by Genesis 6, which I'll post on the next post as I'm afraid to lose this one. lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artsylady Posted June 23, 2004 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 171 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 4,813 Content Per Day: 0.64 Reputation: 150 Days Won: 0 Joined: 09/26/2003 Status: Offline Author Share Posted June 23, 2004 Genesis 6 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts