Isa Posted January 24, 2008 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 10 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 280 Content Per Day: 0.05 Reputation: 23 Days Won: 0 Joined: 11/15/2007 Status: Offline Birthday: 02/03/1965 Share Posted January 24, 2008 (edited) 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, Edited January 24, 2008 by Isa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exrockstar Posted January 24, 2008 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 34 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,673 Content Per Day: 0.27 Reputation: 111 Days Won: 0 Joined: 03/21/2007 Status: Offline Share Posted January 24, 2008 The Bible, by design is entirely culturally relevant to the times in which it was first penned. yes ive heard you say this many times as your foundation of your studies. You've been clear on certain issues that you stand on and have said the "relevant to the times" statement. well, some of us believe that if the Holy Spirit talked to us back in 1995 that He wouldn't use the word "crib" to describe a house. just sayin' thanks for th conversation. Go ahead and get the last word. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted January 24, 2008 Share Posted January 24, 2008 Hi Shiloh357, QUOTE 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. My friend you just need to look at what the verse is saying. Genesis 6 The Wickedness and Judgment of Man 1 Now it came to pass, when men (humans) began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them, 2 that the sons of God (fallen angels) saw the daughters of men (humans), that they were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves of all whom they chose. 3 And the LORD said, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abrandnewgirl Posted January 25, 2008 Group: Members Followers: 1 Topic Count: 3 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 43 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 4 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/19/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 05/18/1963 Share Posted January 25, 2008 i sure don't know what to think now! your job scripture, rockstar, seems quite clear and yet & i used to hold to that view but i can't wrap my thoughts around angels running around down here on earth procreating i have concluded that i don't need to think about this any more for now at least no one has asked the million dollar question: why would angels mix with humans? #1 they wouldn't,#2 they can't and #3 if they could and would why are they not doing it now ,today, in this day and age? The reason that the sons of God came and procreated with the women was to tamper with the BLOOD LINE. If they could tamper with the Blood lines guys/gals then Jesus would not have been able to come through man-kind and put satan away. Nephelim mixed with mankind (women) is not a thought I care to dwell on. 'EX' made mention of some scriptures that can not be ignored or shook off. So how would you explain that? Shall we get into 'word' studies? We can certainly disect passages but if things turn to prove your theory wrong then why continue to argue. The Scripture can certainly interpret itself with out us redefining its meaning. Blessings, Abrandnewgirl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 The reason that the sons of God came and procreated with the women was to tamper with the BLOOD LINE. If they could tamper with the Blood lines guys/gals then Jesus would not have been able to come through man-kind and put satan away. Again, this works from an assumption that the "sons of god" are angels/fallen angels which no one has really proven from the text of Genesis 6. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isa Posted January 25, 2008 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 10 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 280 Content Per Day: 0.05 Reputation: 23 Days Won: 0 Joined: 11/15/2007 Status: Offline Birthday: 02/03/1965 Share Posted January 25, 2008 The reason that the sons of God came and procreated with the women was to tamper with the BLOOD LINE. If they could tamper with the Blood lines guys/gals then Jesus would not have been able to come through man-kind and put satan away. Again, this works from an assumption that the "sons of god" are angels/fallen angels which no one has really proven from the text of Genesis 6. Hi Shiloh357, You seem to like the word assumption, when infact the assumption is actual fact, it's just you haven't had your eyes opened to the truth yet. Ex, myself and many others have given you the undeniable truth from the word of God about the sons of God being fallen angels, and at other times when the sons of God are mentioned it talks about the followers AKA children of God, you just don't want to see the truth and prefer to live in the dark. We can not be wasting time going over the same things all the time when one is not willing to see the truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 Hi Shiloh357, You seem to like the word assumption, when infact the assumption is actual fact, it's just you haven't had your eyes opened to the truth yet. Ex, myself and many others have given you the undeniable truth from the word of God about the sons of God being fallen angels, No you have not. You keep making the same assertions over and over again as if it is established truth. Does the 6th chapter of Genesis define "sons of god" as used in that text as "fallen angels?" Does it give ANY direct connection at all between the two? If it does demonstrate that. you just don't want to see the truth and prefer to live in the dark.No, I just don't buy your views, hook, line and sinker. I can think for myself, and I guess that bothers you. We can not be wasting time going over the same things all the time when one is not willing to see the truth. We keep covering the same ground because I keep asking you for evidence, and since you cannot provide it, your only recourse is to act like I am blind to deflect attention from the glaring weakness of your position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isa Posted January 25, 2008 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 10 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 280 Content Per Day: 0.05 Reputation: 23 Days Won: 0 Joined: 11/15/2007 Status: Offline Birthday: 02/03/1965 Share Posted January 25, 2008 Hi Shiloh357, You seem to like the word assumption, when infact the assumption is actual fact, it's just you haven't had your eyes opened to the truth yet. Ex, myself and many others have given you the undeniable truth from the word of God about the sons of God being fallen angels, No you have not. You keep making the same assertions over and over again as if it is established truth. Does the 6th chapter of Genesis define "sons of god" as used in that text as "fallen angels?" Does it give ANY direct connection at all between the two? If it does demonstrate that. you just don't want to see the truth and prefer to live in the dark.No, I just don't buy your views, hook, line and sinker. I can think for myself, and I guess that bothers you. We can not be wasting time going over the same things all the time when one is not willing to see the truth. We keep covering the same ground because I keep asking you for evidence, and since you cannot provide it, your only recourse is to act like I am blind to deflect attention from the glaring weakness of your position. Hi shiloh357, This is a statement from one of your previous posts. 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. I don't know who Gilgamesh is and I don't really care to know but what I do know that in Genesis 6 the sons of God refer to fallen angels not some so called deity born of a deity when the world was created. If that is so then they are not sons of God they are sons of mans imagination gone wild. 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. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exrockstar Posted January 26, 2008 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 34 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,673 Content Per Day: 0.27 Reputation: 111 Days Won: 0 Joined: 03/21/2007 Status: Offline Share Posted January 26, 2008 I don't know who Gilgamesh is and I don't really care to know but what I do know that in Genesis 6 the sons of God refer to fallen angels not some so called deity born of a deity when the world was created. If that is so then they are not sons of God they are sons of mans imagination gone wild. You can do a google on the story and maybe read it online someday. It's interesting how people have said that that story influenced the story with Genesis. That is a different matter. The important thing is the word "sons of God" transers to the word "beni-ha-Elohim." Elohim (אֱלוֹהִים , אלהים ) is a Hebrew word which expresses concepts of divinity. it is a commonly accepted the root of this source among Jewish scholars is that the word literally translates to "powers" meaning God is the One in control of these powers. Obviously one of the 10 commandment is "You shall have no other gods before Me." There is ONE GOD. Some look at Genesis that it was written by a person influenced by his culture...others, like myself, agree but ALSO ADD that the Holy Spirit inspired. Do I believe that the Holy Spirit called pagans "sons of gods?" no there are no other gods. Do i believe that the Holy Spirit called pagans rulers with some sort of divinity? no. they maybe said they were but God would not address them in that manner. That is the key. Gods Word IS TRUTH. It doesnt matter what pagans called themselves. It doesnt matter what the author called them. It is what God addressed them as. If God said the pagan rulers were "divine" in any way shape or form then being a pagan was perhaps a good thing. Angels on the otherhand ARE of divine messengers, etc etc etc The keyword is "Elohim." That is in the hebrew text. It's loud and clear. God bless Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts