Days of Noah/sons of God

[exrockstar]

this is some sort of angelic infiltration.

read scripture slowly.

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.

"those days"= days of the flood

"also after that" = after the flood

Talk about sloppy exegesis. That conclusion derives no support from the text. We have no account of any angelic fornication with women occurring post flood. The word "giant" does not refer to stature in v.4. it refers to reputation, "mighty men, men of reknwown."

Besides you have not offered anything even remotely conclusive that shows "sons of god" MUST refer to angels in the text of Genesis 6. You simply prefer to bevlieve a fairytale as opposed to actually examining the text from a more realistic, plausible and intelligent perspective.

and you have offered what? ....nothing

is this the way you do things in your ministry?

the way you come off reminds me of an ex-girlfriend.

Well then, you must be gay if I remind you of an ex-girlfriend. You can keep your homosexual tendencies to yourself.

i wasnt talking about your physical appearance.

dont get ahead of yourself.

relax.

[Isa]

this is some sort of angelic infiltration.

read scripture slowly.

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.

"those days"= days of the flood

"also after that" = after the flood

Talk about sloppy exegesis. That conclusion derives no support from the text. We have no account of any angelic fornication with women occurring post flood. The word "giant" does not refer to stature in v.4. it refers to reputation, "mighty men, men of reknwown."

Besides you have not offered anything even remotely conclusive that shows "sons of god" MUST refer to angels in the text of Genesis 6. You simply prefer to bevlieve a fairytale as opposed to actually examining the text from a more realistic, plausible and intelligent perspective.

the way you come off reminds me of an ex-girlfriend.

Well then, you must be gay if I remind you of an ex-girlfriend. You can keep your homosexual tendencies to yourself.

Hi shiloh357

Genesis 6:1-4

1 Now it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them, 2 that the sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves of all whom they chose.

3 And the LORD said,

[Guest shiloh357]

and you have offered what? ....nothing

is this the way you do things in your ministry?

I have offered the most plausible and realistic explanation. If you cannot demonstrate why the text demands "angels" be understood as "the sons of god" there is no logical reason to believe such. It is rather hypocritical to accuse me of providing "nothing" when all you are running on is fumes where your interpretation is concerned.

The text does not say, "the sons of god came down to the daughters of men. There is nothing in the text that ascribes them as angels, fallen angels or any other kind of supernatural being.

I however, in studying history realize that the term "sons of god" was most usually a reference to pagan rulers who fancied themselves as deities and this is attested to by history. It simply fits as being a cultural reference to pagan kings/princes who lived in unbridled immorality and produced children who were likewise unbridled.

i wasnt talking about your physical appearance.

Doesn't matter. Seeing any similarity in me and an exgirlfriend of yours is just creepy. Like I said, keep it to yourself.

[Guest shiloh357]

Satan himself tried to create his own race so that he could be God over them, but God destroyed his plan and God continues to use Satans evil plots against God to bring about God's own plan of salvation for mankind.

That is an assumption based upon no clear statement from the text. It may be a popular idea, but it is not correct and no amount of hermeneutics supports that assumption

If you just look at the verses above you can see that the word of God is talking about two different characters here. 1) Men - Humans 2) sons of God - angels (fallen ones) it is quite plain to see.

No, it is not plain to see. "sons of god" is a cultural reference to ancient pagan kings who in the days contemporary with the writing of Scripture, saw themselves as desendents or the offspring of their gods. They used this to justify their right to rule in the eyes of their subjects. There is nothing in the text of Genesis 6 that demands "sons of god" refers to angels in that text.

Men -Humans began to multiply and their daugthers were beautiful so fallen angels- the sons of God to them as wives and they bore children to them. These relationships caused the children to be giants, whether this be tall in stature or whatever these children stood out amongst the rest of mankind. They were about after the flood aswell the Bible says, so not once but twice the fallen angels came and had relations with the daughters of man.

The Bible says there were giants in those days, which days? The days before the flood, then it goes on to say and also afterward, when afterward? After the flood, where did these giants come from if they were all killed by the flood and Noah and his wife, their sons and their wives were the only survivors, so where did these giants come from. Once again the sons of God - fallen angels took wives of the daughters of men, it is so plain to see.

Again, that cannot developed form the text. You are straining the text to make this theory fit.

"Giants" do not refer to people of inordinate stature in this text. It refers to men of great reputation and who were given over to great sin which precipitated the flood.

[exrockstar]

and you have offered what? ....nothing

is this the way you do things in your ministry?

I have offered the most plausible and realistic explanation.

i'll give you benefit of the doubt.

what post number in this thread is your explanation? or your exegesis?

i may have over looked it.

post number please. thanks.

do not comment on any other thing but rather type the post number.

[Guest shiloh357]

Posts # 73, 88, 98, 100, 103, 117, 121

[Isa]

Satan himself tried to create his own race so that he could be God over them, but God destroyed his plan and God continues to use Satans evil plots against God to bring about God's own plan of salvation for mankind.

That is an assumption based upon no clear statement from the text. It may be a popular idea, but it is not correct and no amount of hermeneutics supports that assumption

If you just look at the verses above you can see that the word of God is talking about two different characters here. 1) Men - Humans 2) sons of God - angels (fallen ones) it is quite plain to see.

No, it is not plain to see. "sons of god" is a cultural reference to ancient pagan kings who in the days contemporary with the writing of Scripture, saw themselves as desendents or the offspring of their gods. They used this to justify their right to rule in the eyes of their subjects. There is nothing in the text of Genesis 6 that demands "sons of god" refers to angels in that text.

Men -Humans began to multiply and their daugthers were beautiful so fallen angels- the sons of God to them as wives and they bore children to them. These relationships caused the children to be giants, whether this be tall in stature or whatever these children stood out amongst the rest of mankind. They were about after the flood aswell the Bible says, so not once but twice the fallen angels came and had relations with the daughters of man.

The Bible says there were giants in those days, which days? The days before the flood, then it goes on to say and also afterward, when afterward? After the flood, where did these giants come from if they were all killed by the flood and Noah and his wife, their sons and their wives were the only survivors, so where did these giants come from. Once again the sons of God - fallen angels took wives of the daughters of men, it is so plain to see.

Again, that cannot developed form the text. You are straining the text to make this theory fit.

"Giants" do not refer to people of inordinate stature in this text. It refers to men of great reputation and who were given over to great sin which precipitated the flood.

Hi shiloh357

Let's have a look at a few verses where it talks about the sons of God.

Genesis 6:1-5

The Wickedness and Judgment of Man

1 Now it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them, 2 that the sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves of all whom they chose. 3 And the LORD said,

[Guest shiloh357]

I am sorry Isa, but that is improper hermeneutic treatment of the text of Genesis 6.

You are trying to link one phrase ("sons of God") in Genesis 6, with every other use of the term, in the Bible, and that is just not the right way to go about it.

Genesis 6 has a different purpose, context and occasion than does say Job chapters 1, 2, and 38.

It is incorrect to assume that the term is used consistently the same way each time it is employed in Scripture.

We have in English, phrases that and words that used differently depending on the context. For example:

I am talking to someone and I say, "That man is green." What do I mean by that? Well, you would have to examine the existing conversation and the circumstances. If I say, "That man is green," I may mean he is looks sick; I might be referring to him as "inexperienced" or I might be saying that he is green with jealousy. Only by examining the conversation and the circumstances could you ascertain what I meant.

It is the same with "sons of god." There is nothing in Genesis alone that demands "sons of God" to be understood as angels. Just because the term is used for angels in Job 1,2 and 38, does NOT mean that it is to be understood that way in Genesis 6. The text does not demand it to be understood that way.

We will find in these verses the word of God says all those who believe and follow Jesus Christ are sons of God, why are we called sons of God? Because we have the Holy Spirit and eternal life and we are equal to the angels.

No, we are not equal to the angels. That is a supposition on your part, but that is not what the Bible says. It nowhere declares that we are equal to the angels.

In Genesis 6:1-5 God was angry that these fallen angels had left the proper domain and this is what He said, Genesis 6:3"3 And the LORD said,

[exrockstar]

The "sons of God" mentioned in Genesis 6 do not refer either to rightesous people nor does it refer to demons. In ancient times pagan kings were often revered as gods or the offspring of gods. Many of the ancient "creation" accounts were written to present a king as having the right to rule on the grounds that he was a deity born of a deity when the world was created. This can be seen in writings such as the Epic of Gilgamesh. These stories were used to present a sort of "right to rule."

"sons of god" is nothing more than a common ancient term for pagan kings.

two points.

1. The Epic of Gilgamesh tablets (when discovered) were said to be made in 2750 and 2500 BCE in Ancient Sumeria.

Genesis roughly 850 - 620 BC depending on the document but was orally passed on beforehand.

Job was said to be written 600 - 400 BC.

it is within reason that beni-ha-Elohim is used in the same context between Job and Genesis just by the date and area.

2. If you believe Moses wrote the Torah...or the Torah was written with inspiration

of the Holy Spirit. How can you conclude that the author calls anyone, especially rulers, "offsprings of gods?"

That would be a double lie.

a. There are no offsprings of gods.

b. there are no other gods but one God.

Even if the author was influenced by cultural terms that lie could not go down on paper as the Word of God because:

a. There are no offsprings of gods.

b. there are no other gods but one God.

I believe that your interpretation "sons of God/gods" is a false title for any mortal to possess, especially a pagan, unless it is true.

Are we children of God? Yes (Romans 8:16)

Were those pagan kings, literally or not, "sons of God?" No.

were they "sons of gods." No because no other gods exist.

Do i believe the Holy Spirit addresses, along with the authors, false titles?

no

[Guest shiloh357]

1. The Epic of Gilgamesh tablets (when discovered) were said to be made in 2750 and 2500 BCE in Ancient Sumeria.

Genesis roughly 850 - 620 BC depending on the document but was orally passed on beforehand.

Job was said to be written 600 - 400 BC.

it is within reason that beni-ha-Elohim is used in the same context between Job and Genesis just by the date and area.

That is only one basic element in understanding the background of any given text in Scripture. The fact is you still have to account for a different purpose and occasion and in this case a different author with a completely different object in view as he is writing. The fact that the book of Job and the book of Genesis are contemporary does not mean that "sons of god" are used the same way in both texts. The fact remains that you still have two different contexts in play and that cannot just be swept under the rug.

If you believe Moses wrote the Torah...or the Torah was written with inspiration

of the Holy Spirit. How can you conclude that the author calls anyone, especially rulers, "offsprings of gods?"

That would be a double lie.

a. There are no offsprings of gods.

b. there are no other gods but one God.

Even if the author was influenced by cultural terms that lie could not go down on paper as the Word of God because:

a. There are no offsprings of gods.

b. there are no other gods but one God.

It is not a matter of the Bible lending any authenticity to the claim of pagan kings to be the offspring of gods. Nor, is it a case of the Bible lending any authenticity to the belief in more than one God.

It is a case of Bible simply borrowing a term that would have been understood and used by the people of that time period. Using a familiar term is not an endorsement of it. The fact is that when Moses began penning the Torah, the concept of pagan kings seeing themselves as gods or the offspring of gods would have been well known to the former slaves of Egypt as the Pharoahs were worshipped as such and so that would not have been a foreign concept to them at all. In ancient times, it was all to common for Kings to declare themsevlves to be gods. The Bible simply acknolwedges that cultural reality. It does not agree with, or affirm it.

I believe that your interpretation "sons of God/gods" is a false title for any mortal to possess, especially a pagan, unless it is true.

I did not say that it was not a false title. I am not endorsing the pagan kings as "sons of the gods." I am simply stating a cultural reality that flavors the text. The entire Bible is flavored by the peripheral issues that were contemporary with it. That is why an understanding of the cultures and issues that were contemporary with the biblical authors is so important. God did not circumvent any of that when He inspired the Scriptures. The Bible, by design is entirely culturally relevant to the times in which it was first penned.