- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,855,755
- 52,545
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
That works both ways, Assyrian. What's your "wide range of interpretation" of Genesis 6?
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
That works both ways, Assyrian. What's your "wide range of interpretation" of Genesis 6?So I suppose we have to chose between your interpretation of Genesis 6, an obscure passage with a wide range of interpretations, and what Jesus tells us about angels.
That wasn't your request, though.According to Genesis 6, did angels reproduce, or didn't they?
Sounds good to me --- no argument there.Spiritual beings produced offspring with physical beings in Genesis 6. They did not reproduce.
The traditional Evangelical interpretation which you will find in commentaries like the Geneva Study Bible, Matthew Henry, Wesley's Notes or JBF, is that it refers to intermarriage between between the godly sons of Seth and the irreligious daughters of Cain.That works both ways, Assyrian. What's your "wide range of interpretation" of Genesis 6?
Another approach reads the 'sons of God' are angelic beings, which raises the obvious question of how angels could have sex with human women and have children. How are two completely different lifeforms even interfertile? Clearly there is one interpretation that says "they just are". It is an interpretation that contradicts what Jesus tells us about angels and what we know about biology.JBF said: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 traditional Evangelical interpretation which you will find in commentaries like the Geneva Study Bible, Matthew Henry, Wesley's Notes or JBF, is that it refers to intermarriage between between the godly sons of Seth and the irreligious daughters of Cain.
Another approach reads the 'sons of God' are angelic beings, which raises the obvious question of how angels could have sex with human women and have children. How are two completely different lifeforms even interfertile? Clearly there is one interpretation that says "they just are". It is an interpretation that contradicts what Jesus tells us about angels and what we know about biology.
Another interpretation take the sons of God as rebellious angels but sees them using a human host, a demon possessed man, to have sex with human women. The angelic involvement is spiritual, the biology is totally human.
Then we have the metaphorical meaning. We find throughout the bible the ungodly referred to as sons of the devil, or children of Belial. It does not mean literally. The Pharisees Jesus said were of their father the devil, had normal human mothers and fathers. But since we are talking about Genesis here, don't forget the ancient promise that God would put emnity between the seed of the serpent and the seed of the woman. When the Pharisees acted as children of the devil hating Jesus, they were fulfilling this ancient prophecy. But it is their characters not their biology that are children of a fallen angel.
So if this metaphor of children of a fallen angel is found in Genesis 3, isn't it possible when we read of children of fallen angels in Genesis 6 it is the same metaphor? In fact the passage in Genesis 6 echoes the language of the creation account with God saying I will destroy Adam whom I have created from the face of the earth Gen 6:7.
QV please.The traditional Evangelical interpretation which you will find in commentaries like the Geneva Study Bible, Matthew Henry, Wesley's Notes or JBF, is that it refers to intermarriage between between the godly sons of Seth and the irreligious daughters of Cain.
They aren't --- the Nephilim are the results of the interbreeding.So, if angels are the result of interbreeding between the sons of god and physical beings...
Soitenly ---Can you reply to my previous post please AV?
Angels came into being creatio ex nihilo, whereas humans came into being creatio ex materia.I am saying that angels, if theistic evolution is true, did not come into being the same way humans came into being.
By taking possession of ungodly men, angels could have produced this race of Nephilim.And if angels reproduce, how do they do it? Are there baby angels? And how do you respond to the mentioned quote that angels don't marry? or is premarital sex okay for angels?
They aren't --- the Nephilim are the results of the interbreeding.
Soitenly ---Angels came into being creatio ex nihilo, whereas humans came into being creatio ex materia.
By taking possession of ungodly men, angels could have produced this race of Nephilim.
I couldn't agree with you more, Assyrian --- I loathe it, myself; and links to Youtube are especially out of the question (barring [very few] exceptions, of course).Argument by weblink is a pretty lame response AV.
Within that wide range of interpretations, you can find what I subscribe to as well. Let's not throw the baby out with the bath water, eh?Besides the page supports my statement that there is a wide range of interpretations of the passage.
Sympathy on the headacheI admittedly had never heard of the Seth and Cain interpretation, but it makes my head hurt a lot less than this discussion we've been having. I don't know if AV will let it stand though.
So you're against a Christian marrying a non-Christian?Sympathy on the headachescripture interpretation can be a bit like that at times. I am not wild about the interpretation myself, but it does pick up on a major theme running through the bible, the danger of intermarriage between the people of God and the surrounding pagan cultures. We find it in the story of Esau and the quest to find a godly wives for Isaac and Jacob, in the problems Israel ran into mixing with the Moabites. It is a major theme in Nehemiah too.
So you're saying --- hypothetically --- that not all life in the universe evolved --- is that correct?
They aren't --- the Nephilim are the results of the interbreeding.
Soitenly ---Angels came into being creatio ex nihilo, whereas humans came into being creatio ex materia.
By taking possession of ungodly men, angels could have produced this race of Nephilim.
Just checking ---So you're against a Christian marrying a non-Christian?I'm pretty sure your god is too.
Then we have the metaphorical meaning. We find throughout the bible the ungodly referred to as sons of the devil, or children of Belial. It does not mean literally. The Pharisees Jesus said were of their father the devil, had normal human mothers and fathers. But since we are talking about Genesis here, don't forget the ancient promise that God would put emnity between the seed of the serpent and the seed of the woman. When the Pharisees acted as children of the devil hating Jesus, they were fulfilling this ancient prophecy. But it is their characters not their biology that are children of a fallen angel.
So if this metaphor of children of a fallen angel is found in Genesis 3, isn't it possible when we read of children of fallen angels in Genesis 6 it is the same metaphor? In fact the passage in Genesis 6 echoes the language of the creation account with God saying I will destroy Adam whom I have created from the face of the earth Gen 6:7.
And James and John?You started with one metaphoric interpretation, then it brought out many many consequential metaphors. So, one way to argue back is to hit the very first one.
Son of devil, son of God, are they really metaphoric descriptions? I don't think so. The person so called has, in fact, two natures. That is real and is not a metaphor at all. Just like we say we have a physical body and a spirit. So we have a "spiritual life". Is that also a metaphor? Of course not.
Another illustration of a literally true Bible.
Mark 3:17 said:And James the son of Zebedee, and John the brother of James; and he surnamed them Boanerges, which is, The sons of thunder:
You started with one metaphoric interpretation, then it brought out many many consequential metaphors. So, one way to argue back is to hit the very first one.
Son of devil, son of God, are they really metaphoric descriptions? I don't think so. The person so called has, in fact, two natures. That is real and is not a metaphor at all. Just like we say we have a physical body and a spirit. So we have a "spiritual life". Is that also a metaphor? Of course not.
Another illustration of a literally true Bible.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?