Days of Noah/sons of God

[Guest shiloh357]

Elohim (אֱלוֹהִים , אלהים ) is a Hebrew word which expresses concepts of divinity.

Elohim expresses more than Divinity. While it can refer to angels, It is also used to refer to human rulers/magistrates as in Psalm 82:6. So it is not at all uncommon for the word to be used for human rulers. When applied to humans it is not ascribig Deity or Divinity to them. Rather it simpy is a reference to their authority over the people. "sons of god" is not a reference to Deity when used in Scripture to refer to humans. It is simply a term denoting one who is in authority.

Hebrew words often play doube, triple or quadruple duty. Some words in Hebrew can have up to 18-20 different meanings.

[Sion]

http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Gen/Gen006.html#top

King James Version (KJV) Genesis - Chapter 6

Gen 6:1

[exrockstar]

Elohim (אֱלוֹהִים , אלהים ) is a Hebrew word which expresses concepts of divinity.

Elohim expresses more than Divinity. While it can refer to angels, It is also used to refer to human rulers/magistrates as in Psalm 82:6. So it is not at all uncommon for the word to be used for human rulers. When applied to humans it is not ascribig Deity or Divinity to them. Rather it simpy is a reference to their authority over the people. "sons of god" is not a reference to Deity when used in Scripture to refer to humans. It is simply a term denoting one who is in authority.

Hebrew words often play doube, triple or quadruple duty. Some words in Hebrew can have up to 18-20 different meanings.

no one is debating the phrase used on human rulers.

youre missing the point:

when Paul says: "Galatians 3:26

For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus."

Then we know through TRUTH that you, as a believer of Christ, ARE a child of God.

As a believer, yuo know how a divine tie to God.

Pslams 82 says "6 "I said, 'You are "gods";

you are all sons of the Most High.'"

these are earthly judges REPRESENTING God. the first verse of that chapter said:

"1 God presides in the great assembly;

he gives judgment among the "gods":"

God said it then its TRUTH. They (the judges or rulers) represent God so there is a sense of divinity

since God is making it known.

So youre too broad when you say that "sons of God" can be to humans.

If it is said to humans by God then there is TRUTH and a divine tie.

Pagan rulers, as youve "interpreted," have no divine ties. They believe in many gods.

If God addressed pagans as "his sons" then there is confusion.

It's beyond what Moses wrote in Genesis. It's beyond what the culture said at that time.

It's about how God is addressing.

Elohim expresses concepts of divinity.

Again, the word "sons of God" transfers to the word "beni-ha-Elohim."

[Guest shiloh357]

Pagan rulers, as youve "interpreted," have no divine ties. They believe in many gods.

If God addressed pagans as "his sons" then there is confusion.

It's beyond what Moses wrote in Genesis. It's beyond what the culture said at that time.

It's about how God is addressing.

Elohim expresses concepts of divinity.

Again, the word "sons of God" transfers to the word "beni-ha-Elohim."

You are operating from the false premise that if "sons of god" is used for pagan rulers it is tantamount to ascribing Divinity to them. That is simply not true. It is nothing more than cultural term.

Furthermore you have not established that "angels" are the "sons of god" being referenced from the text. You cannot get that from the text because the text does define them as angels.

At least my position has historical support. You have nothing.

[exrockstar]

At least my position has historical support. You have nothing.

your historical support is from hieroglyphics telling the epic of gilgamesh.

1500 years older than the writing of Genesis.

That is your only support.

Whomever you feel wrote Genesis should of used a small "g" because capital

"G" means the ONE God of Israel. Even Wikipedia says "Elohim has plural morphological form in Hebrew, but it is used with singular verbs and adjectives in the Hebrew text when the particular meaning of the God of Israel (a singular deity) is traditionally understood."

your support is a "cultural term" that is 1500 years older than the writing of Genesis.

Today we don't even say phrases from 500AD.

You need to present evidence that is going to be convincing.

[Guest shiloh357]

QUOTE (shiloh357 @ Jan 26 2008, 06:22 PM)

At least my position has historical support. You have nothing.

your historical support is from hieroglyphics telling the epic of gilgamesh.

1500 years older than the writing of Genesis.

That is your only support.

Wrong. Even in ancient Egypt contemporary with Moses, the Egyptian Pharoahs were worshipped as gods and/or the offspring of their gods which is why their names contained the names of the gods they claimed to be descended from. In acnient Egypt alone, there were over 170 individual "god-kings" as they were called that ruled The Ancient Egyptian civilization spanned more than 3,000 years. During that time period there were at least 30 Dynasties and 170 individual "god-kings" that ruled the "Upper and Lower Kingdoms". Since the Egyptian civilization dates back to the very beginning of recorded history information on the many of the kings is sparse. Kings often had their names "erased" from monuments and left out of the "list of kings" if they had offended their successors.Here are some of the better known kings of Egypt: Kufu, Thutmose III, Amenhotep IV also called Akhenaton, Tutankhamen, Rameses II.

China, Japan, Rome, Egypt and other cultures had, in ancient times, a belief in the deification of their kings. This is based on a whole more history than just the Epic of Gilgamesh. Like I said some time back, you really don't have a clue about what you are talking about.

Whomever you feel wrote Genesis should of used a small "g" because capital

"G" means the ONE God of Israel.

There are no capital or lower case letters in Hebrew, and like I said, Elohim is used many different ways. Depending on the context it can used as a numerical plural or a plural of intensity. It can refer to God Himself, angels, pagan gods, or human rulers.

There is nothing in the context of Genesis 6 that suggests that the "sons of god" were angels. There is no evidence ANYWHERE that angels can pro-create. That is another glaring difficulty.

Also, Jude tells us that the fallen angels (whom are assumed to be referenced in Gensis 6) are kept locked up in chains until judgment and so it falls to you to explain how these angels who have been under lock and key since their fall from Heaven could possibly have escaped their prison to have sex with earthly women even IF we assume that they can have sex at all.

You need to present evidence that is going to be convincing.

If you cannot provide conclusive evidence form Genesis six that demands an "angelic" understanding of the text, then I don't have to disprove or convince of anything. You are wrong by default.

[exrockstar]

If you cannot provide conclusive evidence form Genesis six that demands an "angelic" understanding of the text, then I don't have to disprove or convince of anything. You are wrong by default.

and you provided conclusive evidence?

youre wrong til your stance is proven.

i let go our conversation and followed it with Isa.

You decided to keep talking well.....convince us.

actually the more i read your responses the more i realize that youre mentored by books.

reading many books by various authors just lets me know youre a sheep that has followed many many shepards.

I have yet to read anything that's credible or convincing from you.

im personally not interested on where you stand so we really shouldnt be having a conversation

with each other. If you dont agree with what i say then move on.

[Guest shiloh357]

and you provided conclusive evidence?

youre wrong til your stance is proven.

I did not claim anything to be "conclusive." My opinion is that it more plausible, reasonable and realistic. I have presented evidence. Evidence is not proof. I did not claim to be able to "prove" anything. I am convinced of it myself, and I present the information I have as one who is convinced it is accurate. That is not the same claiming it conclusive, as that would imply irrefutable, and I am not foolish enough to make such a claim.

i let go our conversation and followed it with Isa.

You decided to keep talking well.....convince us.

I let our conversation go as well. I was talking to Isa and you decided to chime back in. I am not the one that has the burden of proof. You represent the status quo and as such in a debate, the burden of proof always falls to the status quo.

Furthermore, since you cannot provide any evidence from the text of Genesis that demonstrates that "angels" is the most plausible and obvious meaning for "sons of god," then you really don't have the grounds from an evidentiary or textual basis to claim that my position is carries any less weight than yours.

actually the more i read your responses the more i realize that youre mentored by books.

reading many books by various authors just lets me know youre a sheep that has followed many many shepards.

Actually, I have discovered that God has anointed many men and women whom He has called to teach and preach His Word throughout the ages, and I have learned the valuable lesson of listening to godly teachers who are more knowlgeable than I. The Bible puts a high premium on the virtue of seeking to to associate with and learn from those who are wise in Scriptures. God has, according to Ephesians 4, given gifts to the church and among those gifts are teachers.

No one corners the market on spirtual/scriptural truth contained in the Bible and it is nothing short of arrogant to assume that one does not have any need for the wisdom of those whom God has called in the various ministry vocations, including teachers. I don't agree with everything I read from every person and I always think for myself, but that does not mean that I will fail to take advantage to learn and grow from the wisdom passed down by other saints of God who have gone on before us.

I have yet to read anything that's credible or convincing from you.

The problem here is that you don't want to be convinced. I can't really do anything about that.

im personally not interested on where you stand so we really shouldnt be having a conversation

with each other.

Yeah, right and that is why you have spent so much time on this thread trying to discredit my position. You have been working awfully hard for someone who is not interested. I have no respect for someone who doesn't tell the truth. You started our exchange, not me. If you didn't think we should be having this conversation, then you should not have decided to address me in the first place. You are quite "personally interested," or you would be talking to me to start with.

If you dont agree with what i say then move on.

I would remind you that it is YOU that took issue with ME. my initial particiaption was not directed at you in any fashion. I simply stated what I believed to be true. You decided to mix it up with me, not the other way around. I gave you the last word in our exchange and chose not to respond, you jumped back in and now claim I am the one who needs to move on. You are just making a bunch of emtional, irrational rants at this point. I think for myself, and that apparently bothers you. I will remain in this thread as long as I deem it necessary and if you have a problem with that, then you will just have to come to grips with that. It is your problem, not mine.

[Massorite]

http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Gen/Gen006.html#top

King James Version (KJV) Genesis - Chapter 6

Gen 6:1

[Isa]

I do know that in Genesis 6 the sons of God refer to fallen angels

How do you know? You have yet to demonstrate from the text of Genesis 6 that angels are being referred to. Think of it like this. Let's say for the sake of argument that the ONLY part of the Bible I had was the book of Genesis. Now, using only that text, how would I determine internally from that manuscript that "sons of god" refers to fallen angels? How does the text DEMAND that understanding? What are the unmistakable textual indicators that reveal that angels or "fallen angels" are being referenced?

not some so called deity born of a deity when the world was created.

The Epic of Gilgamensh is one of the manuscripts unbelievers use when they want to discount the creation story. They claim that the writers of the Bible more or less plagiarized the story and changed it to fit their believfs. There are other similar "creation" stories in the ancient world that predate Genesis, and many people say that the Bible is just copying ancient mythology about the creation.

The ancient creation accounts were written also to be the "creation account" of pagan kings. The creation of the world was usually accompanied by the "birth" of these kings who claimed to be descended from the gods. That is why many ancient kings bore the names of the gods that they claimed they descended from. It was meant to intimidate their subjects and establish a "right to rule."

We are speaking about God's word here not some fairytale of Gilgamesh, God's word says sons of GOD

which isn't any man or so called king, they are Gods created angels from the time of creation, yet they are the fallen angels who were cast out of heaven to the earth with Satan. They left their proper domain and they went aftyer strange flesh, they took the beautiful daughters of men as wives ( sexual imorallity) and had children with them.

That is something you have still yet to prove. You seem to think that by asserting and reasserting the same unproven assumption that it somehow will make it true. Nothing the text of Genesis 6 says they were angels.

Jude 5 But I want to remind you, though you once knew this, that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe. 6 And the angels who did not keep their proper domain, but left their own abode, He has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of the great day; 7 as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

What gets me you would prefer to believe a mythical story over the word of God.

All the passage in Jude says is that these fallen angels are reserved in everlasting chains under darkness until the day of judgment. Now, if these fallen angels are reserved in everlasting chains after their fall, then how is it that they were running about the earth having sex?

I believe the Bible just fine. I simply know how to read it better.

Hi Shiloh,

I started to write a saga about Genesis because you said for the sake of arguements let say that all we have is Genesis. Well after considering this statement and writing about Genesis and a bit of study I come to the conclusion that to dilly dally around is rediculous if I had Genesis is a silly statement, childish if you ask me. We have the Bible and you want to skip around the truth.

So with that in mind we find in Job the sons of God coming before God and Satan also.

Job 1:6

6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came among them.

Job 2:1

1 Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD.

Job 38:7

When the morning stars sang together,And all the sons of God shouted for joy?

Each time sons of God is mentioned here it is speaking of angels as in Genesis 6.

Genesis 6:2

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.

Genesis 6:4

There were giants on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.

All the passage in Jude says is that these fallen angels are reserved in everlasting chains under darkness until the day of judgment. Now, if these fallen angels are reserved in everlasting chains after their fall, then how is it that they were running about the earth having sex?

Now let's have a look at your statement here, where you have gone wrong is you think they were placed in chains under darkness after their fall. This is wrong, they were cast out of heaven to the earth with Satan. They roamed the earth just as Satan roams the earth. When were they placed in chains in darkness reserved for judgment?

Well my friend during their roaming the earth spiritually they noticed that the daughters of man were beautiful so they left the spiritual realm the proper domain and entered the mortal realm to make wives of the mortal woman and have children with them. This to God was sexual immorality like those in Sodom and Gomorrah. So God punished those angels by casting them into the pit of darkness were they are preserved for the final judgment.

I believe the Bible just fine. I simply know how to read it better.

No my friend you believe the story of Gilgamesh and dispute the truth of God's word. here is no reading God's word better, not one is better than the other. God reveals the truth through the Holy Spirit and to me my friend by your words you tell a story of unbelief. You can not understand the truth when you live in the fantasy world of gods and their sons and the mythological side of things.

God's word is truth and scripture interprates scripture and it is not for private interpretation.

2 Peter 1:19-21

19 And so we have the prophetic word confirmed, which you do well to heed as a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts; 20 knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, 21 for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.

One may be able to read the Bible back to front and quote it of by hand but it is having a personal relationship with it that helps you to understand the Bible. The Bible is Holy Spirit inspired and unless one has the Holy Spirit one can not understand the truths of ods word.