Days of Noah/sons of God

[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.

Pagan kings are mortal. Mortals cannot wander around in heaven.

Some scholars have concluded that Job was written by Moses for various reasons. "Sons of God" in Job reads:

Job 1:

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

7And the LORD said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.

Pagan Kings do not wander around in heaven with Satan.

"Sons of God" are not mortals in any way.

So whatever conclusion one makes it cannot be denied that "sons if God" are not natural beings.

Well, those of us who are better skilled when it comes to hermeneutics are aware that the term "sons of god" is not used the same way every time it appears in the Bible. You cannot assume that such a term is limited to one use or one sense given the multiple times it is used in the Bible.

In Genesis, the term "sons of god" is not referring to angels. That is pure nonsense.

"Sons of God" is the Hebrew word beni-ha-Elohim which only appears 4 times in the Old Testament.

Job 1:6, 2:1, 38:7 and Genesis 6:2.

So your "interpretation" relies on taking one of the four scriptures and making it independant from the rest.

Taking the SAME word and making it your own unique excuse on why its not the same. the reasoning you have behind it is because

it does not make sense in the human view of thinking.

if thats the case then many things in the bible arent going to make sense to you.

this happens quite often when people pick and choose what they feel is appropriate in their belief system.

some draw their own lines to make their own conclusions.

[Guest shiloh357]

"Sons of God" is the Hebrew word beni-ha-Elohim which only appears 4 times in the Old Testament.

Job 1:6, 2:1, 38:7 and Genesis 6:2.

So your "interpretation" relies on taking one of the four scriptures and making it independant from the rest.

No, my interpretatino relies on a knowledge of history concerning how that word was used in the time period contemporary to the account in Genesis 6. That is part of hermeneutics.

Taking the SAME word and making it your own unique excuse on why its not the same. the reasoning you have behind it is because

it does not make sense in the human view of thinking.

if thats the case then many things in the bible arent going to make sense to you.

Frankly, you don't have a clue to what my reasoning is. You simply assign values and motives to based on your own subjective misunderstandings and obviously lack of knowledge where hermeneutics are applied.

[exrockstar]

"Sons of God" is the Hebrew word beni-ha-Elohim which only appears 4 times in the Old Testament.

Job 1:6, 2:1, 38:7 and Genesis 6:2.

So your "interpretation" relies on taking one of the four scriptures and making it independant from the rest.

No, my interpretatino relies on a knowledge of history concerning how that word was used in the time period contemporary to the account in Genesis 6. That is part of hermeneutics.

Taking the SAME word and making it your own unique excuse on why its not the same. the reasoning you have behind it is because

it does not make sense in the human view of thinking.

if thats the case then many things in the bible arent going to make sense to you.

Frankly, you don't have a clue to what my reasoning is. You simply assign values and motives to based on your own subjective misunderstandings and obviously lack of knowledge where hermeneutics are applied.

by all means excercise your findings here.

you have not shown error in anything ive posted.

beni-ha-Elohim

found 4 times should all mean the same thing.

you have to understand that the motive behind the angelic infiltration.

"what would be the point?" you should ask.

"what is the purpose?"

but you do not ask that. instead you negate to see that scripture is telling you that

they were "giants (Gen 6:4)" of great stature superceding the ordinary.

you choose to take a road where they were "pagan kings" that you cannot prove that there were millions

of inhabitants wandering around the earth. in order to rule you need quite a bit of people.

you need governments, a system, power, wealth etc.

you have 8 generations do do all this because there were only 8 generations

between Adam and Noah.

8 generations to quickly turn from worshipping thee God to worshipping false gods except for noah and his family?

well....you take the road you feel you should take.

post your findingings through "hermeneutics" or dont criticize.

[Guest shiloh357]

by all means excercise your findings here.

you have not shown error in anything ive posted.

beni-ha-Elohim

found 4 times should all mean the same thing.

My purpose is not to show error in what you have posted but to simply state that my position is not in error.

Secondly, you are assuming that all four references mean the same thing. That would be like assuming that our English word "love" means the same thing everytime it is used. Does anyone use the word love the same way when they talk about loving their spouse and "loving" their favorite flavor of icecream? Context makes all the difference. In actually, it isn't really even about word "meaning" but word "usage." "Love" has a basic definition or meaning but its application in various contexts detmermines how it is understood.

"sons of god" is no different. Context always determines word usage and how it is be understood. Moses, in Genesis 6, has a different object and purpose in view than does the author of Job and the terms appear in a different context. You simply cannot offer a blanket statemet saying that every reference to the same phrase or word means the same thing every time. We do not operate that way in other languages or contexts and there is no logical reason why it would be any different here.

instead you negate to see that scripture is telling you that

they were "giants (Gen 6:4)" of great stature superceding the ordinary.

And what makes you think that Giant necessarily refers to a person of abnormal height? The running assumption seems to be that angels came and had intercourse with women and the women produced an angelic/human hybrid that amounted to men/women of abnormal height. That is an assumption based upon a face-value approach to the text, which is usually an unreliable approach. I prefer the literal approach myself.

you choose to take a road where they were "pagan kings" that you cannot prove that there were millions

of inhabitants wandering around the earth. in order to rule you need quite a bit of people.

you need governments, a system, power, wealth etc.

And you presume that governments, power, wealth and such did not exist at that time?

I don't have to prove anything. It is well known historical fact that pagan kings saw themselves as offsprings of their gods, and this is especially well attested to in both Chaldean, Egyptian, and even all the way to Roman rulers as well.

So it is not a far fetched at all to understand that immoral pagan kings had their way with any women they wanted and fathered children by those offspring. That is all the story is telling us.

If you cannot prove that "sons of god" is demanded by the text to be understood as angels, then you really don't have anything to say worth my time.

[Isa]

Why would two humans bring forth giants?

So you are saying all angels are descended from angels

Hi onwingsaseagles,

Don't you think that's a pretty silly remark. We all know angels don't marry and have children.

What I asked was do you think all giants are descended from angels.

And if you realize that angels do not reproduce then why do you support the absurd idea that they reproduced with people?

Hi onwingsaseagles,

If angels left their spiritual realm and entered the earthly realm as the Bible so stipulates then I am quiet sure they are able to produce children with women.

It is the word of God that states this fact, if you can not see the truth in God's Word then I suggest you go to the one who can show you the truth.

I am not here to argue the point with you, the Bible is crystal clear in what it says you just have to believe what it says.

God's wisdom is far beyond our wisdom we will not understand everything but we have an eternal God and Father who can teach us the truths of His Word through the Holy Spirit.

To your first remark,you are wrong angels can not and did not reproduce with women.

To your 2nd remark God's word does not state the angels had reproduced with women as a fact,it is your false interpretation of who the sons of God are that causes you to believe this myth.

To your 3rd remark if it is ''crystal clear'' then show me where it says angels reproduce at all much less with humans.

To your 4th God wisdom is far beyond mens,I suggest you start applying that thought to your life instead of being swayed by every wind of doctrine you hear.

Hi onwingsaseagles,

To your first remark angels left their proper domain and saw that the daughters of men were beautiful and they had little or should I say giant babies with them. The Bible is crystal clear on this account. Not only in Jude but also in Genesis.

To your second remark I suggest you read the Bible again especially Jude and Genesis.

Genesis 6:1-

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.

If we look at these two verses we see it was men that began to multiply on the earth, meaning the human race and daughters were born to them being he human race, the son's of God being not the human race of men, but fallen angels saw that these daughters were beautiful so they took them as wives, meaning they married them, in doing so they left their proper domain (being their spiritual domain) and did a abominable thing before the throne of God.

These wives had children to the son's of God who were giants (Nephilim) and God was not pleased because of the wickedness of this race of people who were corrupting the earth, so God chose to destroy them all with a flood. God did so, but after the flood the same thing happened no doubt for we hear of giants in the land once again.

Why is it so hard for you to see the truth, is it because you find it hard admitting you are wrong, or does pride get in your way. It is alright to admit we make mistakes we are only human after all. What we need to do is learn from them and grow in the word of God. I make mistakes and I admit I am not always right and it is good to learn from others, but to learn from other we have to admit we don't know everything only God does. God has given us His word and the Holy Spirit to guide us into understanding and the knowledge of truth. May we all be humble enough to allow the Holy Spirit to work in our lives and show us the true light in God's word.

To your third remark I pray you find this meets up to your standard.

Genesis 6:4

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.

Once again the son's of God and the daughters of men had children, if you can't see that then one is truly blind and only the Holy Spirit can help the blind not me.

To your fourth remark it is not me you attack my dear friend it is the word of God and I will not be swayed from the truth of God's word.

If you seek the truth it can be found,

It's a treasures hidden in the ground,

To find it my friend you must dig to the end,

A reward and a jewel is set in this pool,

Dive in dive deep into the word and you will hear what is to be heard.

God Bless my friend

[exrockstar]

Secondly, you are assuming that all four references mean the same thing. That would be like assuming that our English word "love" means the same thing everytime it is used. Does anyone use the word love the same way when they talk about loving their spouse and "loving" their favorite flavor of icecream? Context makes all the difference. In actually, it isn't really even about word "meaning" but word "usage." "Love" has a basic definition or meaning but its application in various contexts detmermines how it is understood.

Love is complicated word. it has many depths, feelings etc etc. are you also going to take a word like "hungry"

and assume that it does not always mean the same thing (or recognize that all forms of the word hungry point to a similar concept)?

instead you negate to see that scripture is telling you that

they were "giants (Gen 6:4)" of great stature superceding the ordinary.

And what makes you think that Giant necessarily refers to a person of abnormal height?

Numbers 13:33

33And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, which come of the giants: and

we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight.

nef-eel

same word. same author.

perhaps youre feeling as though the scouts were exaggerating? you either

accepts this verse or have concluded Moses sent out a group of small people

to come back with a report? He chose the shortest one from every tribe?

so this is your method of "hermeneutics?"

it doesnt matter if those pagan kings saw themselves as offsprings of their own gods. you cannot produce

something that is "superhuman." you can sit here all day saying that you come from the "god of Corn flakes"

but youre going to have regular sized family just like everyone else. if you feel otherwise then thats on you.

If you cannot prove that "sons of god" is demanded by the text to be understood as angels, then you really don't have anything to say worth my time.

the ball has been in your court for a while and you still havent explained anything.

is this the way you excercise hermeneutics?

if so then your method is a lot of chatter.

opinions are just opinions.

[Guest shiloh357]

QUOTE (shiloh357 @ Jan 21 2008, 01:22 AM)

Secondly, you are assuming that all four references mean the same thing. That would be like assuming that our English word "love" means the same thing everytime it is used. Does anyone use the word love the same way when they talk about loving their spouse and "loving" their favorite flavor of icecream? Context makes all the difference. In actually, it isn't really even about word "meaning" but word "usage." "Love" has a basic definition or meaning but its application in various contexts detmermines how it is understood.

Love is complicated word. it has many depths, feelings etc etc. are you also going to take a word like "hungry"

and assume that it does not always mean the same thing (or recognize that all forms of the word hungry point to a similar concept)?

Thanks, you just re-enforced my point.

QUOTE (shiloh357 @ Jan 21 2008, 01:22 AM)

QUOTE

instead you negate to see that scripture is telling you that

they were "giants (Gen 6:4)" of great stature superceding the ordinary.

And what makes you think that Giant necessarily refers to a person of abnormal height?

Numbers 13:33

33And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, which come of the giants: and

we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight.

nef-eel

same word. same author.

Different purpose and a different context. Like I said, context determine word usage. The object, occasion, purpose and situation are different in Genesis 6, and once again, you are running from assumption, nothing else. Just doing word searches/studies hardly amounts to competent exegesis.

perhaps youre feeling as though the scouts were exaggerating? you either

accepts this verse or have concluded Moses sent out a group of small people

to come back with a report? He chose the shortest one from every tribe?

so this is your method of "hermeneutics?"

I don't know if they were exaggerating or not, and that is not really material to the debate. Numbes 13 is not the text under consideration, AND it does not mean that "giants" in Genesis six refers to literal abnormally tall people. The way a word is used in one text does not in any way govern its use elsewhere.

it doesnt matter if those pagan kings saw themselves as offsprings of their own gods.

It matters quite a bit particularly when it is part of the historical/cultural context of a passage. It matters completely if we want to understand wha the author is trying to convey. It bears directly on the understanding of the text, and so it matters immensely. It may not matter to someonen with their own agendas or who want to impose a particular belief on the text of Scripture, but for those of who seek an honest approach to Scripture it matters a lot.

you cannot produce

something that is "superhuman."

I don't believe the "giants" in Genesis 6 are referring to anyone or anything "superhuman." Even in our culture we refer to people of high profile as "giants" in their sphere of influence, reputation and expertise. That is the sense in which word is used. It refers men who were "giants" men of great reputation and it further defines that word by referring to them as "men of reknown."

QUOTE (shiloh357 @ Jan 21 2008, 01:22 AM)

If you cannot prove that "sons of god" is demanded by the text to be understood as angels, then you really don't have anything to say worth my time.

the ball has been in your court for a while and you still havent explained anything.

There is not much I can explain to those who simply dismiss anything I say without any seriuos consideration.

[dawngordon]

END AGE

Hello, I am a harvester, as described in revelation 14,

I published this in a newsletter (copyrighted) because of some pride issues at time in the church, people have a habit of saying something that was delivered to them by someone else and saying it was them, they call them false prophets anyhow,

I was praying in the spirit and this was revealed to me

revelation 14

his name and his fathers name-clearly TWO they are followers of CHrist (not jews)(descendents of the tribes)

the sound from heaven=holy spirit

HARPS=ANGELS=what jesus said about end of age being harvesters

we surround the four creatures which is denominations of churchs, and the elders are people who serve them,

I was praying in the spirit and this was revealed to me

revelation 20

satan-adversary=demons

false prophet=all false prophets in church and outside like witchcraft

beast=the rest

i know it looks like three people going to hell but it is MANY

revelation 17 supports this by saying that "those in the book of life do not see this phony anti christ man" only those left here see the beast, CHRIST SAID ONE TAKEN ONE STAYS<

now Daniel spoke of the wise stumbling, it's because as jesus said, they were not told the truth, the wise and learned will not know the secrets of heaven, the stumbling you may experience, is because I am telling you the truth, its alright, you will be purified and refined, that is message to you from GOD,

I know this info because I have the Holy SPirit

also a few forums have now closed down because of this, because i told them,

I also know that the seven angels with seven plagues are people like moses, and i know this because he gave me a plague, in my dream,

you have nothing to be afraid of, just accept this information as truth, and do not teach about one anti man not true

the mark of the beast is the mark of MAN not SPirit, no anti christ man with CHIP, since revelation 17 says we do not see the HIM or the beast

thought to let you know that too,

you may have to change things a bit in your end times area, my name is Dawn Gordon, and I am a real Prophet, you can use my name that is fine, I am like ISAIAH, and the rest, so I have a little humor with the Lord, about the book of DAWN haha

[dawngordon]

THE FALSE PROPHET THAT SHOWS SIGNS ON BEHALF OF THE BEAST TO THOSE WITH THE MARK

astrologers, psychics, tarot readers

ex: preaching to astrologer, believes in God, writing horoscopes with lying, stealing and cheating

THE FALSE PROPHET THAT SHOWS SIGNS

now as a harvester, I am harvesting for the Lord,

the lawless one that is revealed is ones who are not abiding the laws of moses, and the prophets. taking christ as savior then continuing with the sins

that is the falling away,

you need to follow the whole book, still confess to the Lord, etc...

not everyone is going to hear the song=not everyone is going to understand

hope some in here will and do, so they can go upstairs,

[dawngordon]

the buying and selling

since they are the only ones here they are getting water (since water is blood) and food, probably medical supplies to because of the boils...what john saw was them getting supplies..