- Jan 21, 2003
- 23,432
- 1,799
- 60
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
Discussion on Genesis 6
- Thread starter nephilimiyr
- Start date
- Status
What part? Gimmee a break. I just typed 3 pages in word on Gen1:1-4. Could you narrow this down a bit?
Laura
Laura
Upvote
0
I have a lot of info on the first few verses and the nephilim. I will send something tomorrow when I have my sources in front of me, if you are ready for a discertation.
Laura
Laura
Upvote
0
Disclaimer: I am not a Pastor or a Theologian. I am just a regular Christian who tries to understand Gods word with my finite, human limitations. Most of this comes from Finis Dake Gods Plan for Man.
There are some scriptures and I do not think this covers the whole Gen 6 but just the first few verses.
Quote: Angels have real, tangible bodies with bodily parts like men: they have appeared to men in real bodies and men could not tell them from other men, as seen before. Paul said, Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for many of you have entertained angels unawares (Heb. 13:2)
Based on his knowledge and interpretation of scripture, it was Dakes opinion that .
Quote: They have souls and spirits, for they have feelings, passions and desires which constitute soul; and they have wills, knowledge, intellect, consciousness and other faculties which constitute spirit .End Quote.
Referring to Gen 6:1-4, Dake again talks about the deeds of some of these unsavory angels.
Quote: That angels did commit fornication is plain in scripture. In 2Pet 2:2-4,we have the statement that angels did sin before the flood and for this sin they were cast down into Hell and delivered into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment. Peter does not tell us what sin the angels committed but Jude 6-7 does..
And the angels who kept not their first estate, but left their own habituation, hath reserved in everlasting chains unto the judgment of the great day. Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
In Gen 6:1-4, we have the historical record of the sin of these angels. If Sodom and other cities committed fornification and lived contrary to nature, or these cities could not have committed the sin of these angels. Thus we have plain proof that angels did live with the daughters of men. End Quote.
This appears in Gen 6 to have resulted in a race of giants. Dake further stated that there were two times that the fallen angels came into the women, once before the flood and once after the flood. Dake further states: The giants after the flood occupied the land of Canaan in advance of Abraham and his seed to thwart Gods promise, if possible, of the coming of Christ, the seed of the woman through Abraham.
Dake goes onto to mention ways that these angels attacked other Godly people through history.
Well that is not the whole chapter, but the rest of it seems to be talking about how God with the flood attempts to wipe out the evil so rampant on the earth..
Laura
There are some scriptures and I do not think this covers the whole Gen 6 but just the first few verses.
Quote: Angels have real, tangible bodies with bodily parts like men: they have appeared to men in real bodies and men could not tell them from other men, as seen before. Paul said, Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for many of you have entertained angels unawares (Heb. 13:2)
Based on his knowledge and interpretation of scripture, it was Dakes opinion that .
Quote: They have souls and spirits, for they have feelings, passions and desires which constitute soul; and they have wills, knowledge, intellect, consciousness and other faculties which constitute spirit .End Quote.
Referring to Gen 6:1-4, Dake again talks about the deeds of some of these unsavory angels.
Quote: That angels did commit fornication is plain in scripture. In 2Pet 2:2-4,we have the statement that angels did sin before the flood and for this sin they were cast down into Hell and delivered into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment. Peter does not tell us what sin the angels committed but Jude 6-7 does..
And the angels who kept not their first estate, but left their own habituation, hath reserved in everlasting chains unto the judgment of the great day. Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
In Gen 6:1-4, we have the historical record of the sin of these angels. If Sodom and other cities committed fornification and lived contrary to nature, or these cities could not have committed the sin of these angels. Thus we have plain proof that angels did live with the daughters of men. End Quote.
This appears in Gen 6 to have resulted in a race of giants. Dake further stated that there were two times that the fallen angels came into the women, once before the flood and once after the flood. Dake further states: The giants after the flood occupied the land of Canaan in advance of Abraham and his seed to thwart Gods promise, if possible, of the coming of Christ, the seed of the woman through Abraham.
Dake goes onto to mention ways that these angels attacked other Godly people through history.
Well that is not the whole chapter, but the rest of it seems to be talking about how God with the flood attempts to wipe out the evil so rampant on the earth..
Laura
Upvote
0
Read the book of Enoch? Is that one of the books in the Catholic Bible, part of the Apocrapha?
Laura
Laura
Upvote
0
Crusader
Active Member
The Book of Enoch was a Book written By Jews around 200 BC under Greek Hellenistic rule. It was classed as divine scripture by Christians and used in the new testament but rejected later because of obvious contradictions to mosses and Genesis.
Gen ch 5 has just finished the two genealogies of Cain and Seth and then strait after this, it says the sons of god (sons of Seth)
took wives from the daughters of men (Cains daughters).
Also notice ch6 v 4
concerning these giants, notice it mentions the giants separate to this union, it was mighty men, men of renown that came from this union, not the giants. It only suggests there was giants around at this time, maybe the giants are dinosaurs????
Concerning the book of Enoch
I believe it is that the Jews read Gen 6 and got confused on its interpretation when writing Enoch because of Greek mythology being there influence and the need to explain Greek mythology and give there god the glory at a time were the Greeks had destroyed Judaism, around 200 BC, which was around the same time the books of Enoch and others that were classed as scripture were written. So maybe the books of Enoch were written under Greek influence from a poor interpretation and understanding of genesis ch 6??? One thing is for shore, Enoch didnt write it and the books of Enoch contradict genesis.
It is a common part of Greek myth to believe that the gods took human wives and had half breads. Things like Zeus and Hercules and others are supposed to be half human, their fathers were gods and their mothers were human. These were the religions that the Jews had to deal with around this time period when it was all written.
Upvote
0
- Jan 21, 2003
- 23,432
- 1,799
- 60
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
Sorry everyone, I thought this forum was going to be down all weekend??? Otherwise I would've posted sooner!
Sorry but again I thought the forum was going to be down and this is Easter Sunday and I must go now. I post back as soon as I can.
Yes, I've read the book several times.
Just wanted to know what people here thought about it from the Nephilim to the hows and whys of God sending judgement in the form of the flood. I know many people reject the idea that the "sons of God" are fallen angels that mated with human women however this is what I believe. I also believe in literal giants that once walked the earth. I'd like to know if there is anyone else here that agrees with me on this.
Sorry but again I thought the forum was going to be down and this is Easter Sunday and I must go now. I post back as soon as I can.
Yes, I've read the book several times.
Upvote
0
Crusader
Active Member
Nephilimiyr, did you take into account that gen ch 5 had just given the linach of two human genealogy lines of Cain and Seth and do you think that has anything to do with the first few verses in chapter 6???
If you believe that there were giant humans, do you believe they are from this union hear??? Take a good look at this verse mate, It says there was already giants in the land in the days the sons of Seth took the daughters of Cain and from them came mighty men , men of renown. These offspring are not Giants , they are separate to the giants. These Giants or naphilium are not humans in my opinion and this verse seems to make the separation between these giants and these offspring which were men of renown or men of war, very clearly.
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.
This shows a direct contradiction to the book of Enoch, weather Jude and other Christians support the book as scriptural or not, it still totally contradicts gen ch 6 as soon as it claims that these giants are from the offspring of this union.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
- Jan 21, 2003
- 23,432
- 1,799
- 60
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
Hello Crusader and Gideon4God, thanks for joining in here! This subject matter happends to be one of the more facinating mysteries I find in the bible hence I have studied it at length. I see that the both of you have too, this I will respect as I want to keep this a discussion without any heated debate. I'm just so glad you want to join me here, just please hear me out. God bless!
Crusader,
I don't see chapter 5 as being two different genealogy lines but just one, if that's what you meant there? Starting with Adam and ending with Noah, Cain is left out. No, I don't think this has anything to do with the first few verses in chapter 6. Much like chapter 1 of Matthew's genealogy of Jesus has to do only with showing a direct line from David to Joseph and Mary, Jesus's mother.
This will be long so I will just tackle one part of this to begin with. Before I can answer you on the Giants I must first start out by explaining my belief on what the "sons of God" mean.
The first verse in chapter 6 doesn't single out any particular group of women or group of men but that men began to multipy and that daughters were born to them. Any other meaning other than the odvious is I believe reading into the text.
Verse 2 say's the "sons of God" saw these daughters, saw they were fair, and took them as wives. Saying that "sons of God" means sons of Seth is again reading into the text something that clearly isn't there. If Moses wanted it to say "sons of Seth" it would've been easy for him just to write that but he didn't. The genealogy in the 5th chapter doesn't explain this and in fact it would make more sense once again for Moses to have simply writen "sons of Seth" instead of "sons of God".
"Sons of God" is the phrase Moses chose to use so to understand the meaning we need to look elsewhere in the bible for this phrase to find the meaning of it. In the original Hebrew it says "Bene Elohim" Only in 4 other passages in the Old Testament is this phrase used in this way:
Job 1:6, Job 2:1, Job 38:7 Daniel 3:25
In those passages "bene Elohim" or "sons of God" is refering to angels. "Bene Elohim" is never used in a way to refer to mankind or any human individual. Even if there was another instance where this phrase is used and is actually used to discribe men the 4 passages above show that the phrase can be used as meaning angels. However, again, from what I understand, this phrase is only used in these 4 passages in the Old Testament.
In the New Testament the phrase is used and written in Greek, and yes, refers to men being considered sons of God but only in a spiritual sense after we accept Jesus as lord and savoir. And we know this wasn't the case in Genesis 6 since Jesus wasn't around to make us sons of God yet.
The thought that "sons of God" means "sons of Seth also has other problems. This makes the passage say that mixed marriages between men and women is a bad thing and will only lead to sin. It also makes a big assumption and implies that only the sons of Seth engaged in mixed marriages, and not the daughters. And only the daughters of Cain were involved, and not the sons.
What's worse for this theory is that it assumes that only the sons of Seth were godly and only the daughters of Cain were ungodly. Genesis 4:26 proves this to be untrue when it says Seth's son Enos was the first to call upon the name of the Lord.
Gen. 4:26 And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the Lord.
If that's the correct translation then upon who did Adam call? or Abel or even Seth himself? There are some more literal translations to this verse and they read: "Then men began to call themselves by the name of Jehovah" or another says "Then men began to call upon their gods by the name of Jehovah. If either of those translations are correct then that says Seths sons weren't as godly as you think.
Why are the sons of Seth considerd more godly than Cains sons any way? If these men were so godly how is it that they lusted after evil women? That would make their act a sin and in effect making them ungodly before they even married these daughters of Cain. I don't know you but if you are a christian would you look for a wife in evil places, lets say among Satan worshipers or in your church?
If the passage was talking about human marriages causing sin throughout mankind I would think that first the evil sons of Cain would've lusted after the godly daughters of Seth. Wouldn't that make more sense?
Before I go further on with the "Giants" I think I should let you respond in kind with what I wrote.
Crusader,
I don't see chapter 5 as being two different genealogy lines but just one, if that's what you meant there? Starting with Adam and ending with Noah, Cain is left out. No, I don't think this has anything to do with the first few verses in chapter 6. Much like chapter 1 of Matthew's genealogy of Jesus has to do only with showing a direct line from David to Joseph and Mary, Jesus's mother.
This will be long so I will just tackle one part of this to begin with. Before I can answer you on the Giants I must first start out by explaining my belief on what the "sons of God" mean.
The first verse in chapter 6 doesn't single out any particular group of women or group of men but that men began to multipy and that daughters were born to them. Any other meaning other than the odvious is I believe reading into the text.
Verse 2 say's the "sons of God" saw these daughters, saw they were fair, and took them as wives. Saying that "sons of God" means sons of Seth is again reading into the text something that clearly isn't there. If Moses wanted it to say "sons of Seth" it would've been easy for him just to write that but he didn't. The genealogy in the 5th chapter doesn't explain this and in fact it would make more sense once again for Moses to have simply writen "sons of Seth" instead of "sons of God".
"Sons of God" is the phrase Moses chose to use so to understand the meaning we need to look elsewhere in the bible for this phrase to find the meaning of it. In the original Hebrew it says "Bene Elohim" Only in 4 other passages in the Old Testament is this phrase used in this way:
Job 1:6, Job 2:1, Job 38:7 Daniel 3:25
In those passages "bene Elohim" or "sons of God" is refering to angels. "Bene Elohim" is never used in a way to refer to mankind or any human individual. Even if there was another instance where this phrase is used and is actually used to discribe men the 4 passages above show that the phrase can be used as meaning angels. However, again, from what I understand, this phrase is only used in these 4 passages in the Old Testament.
In the New Testament the phrase is used and written in Greek, and yes, refers to men being considered sons of God but only in a spiritual sense after we accept Jesus as lord and savoir. And we know this wasn't the case in Genesis 6 since Jesus wasn't around to make us sons of God yet.
The thought that "sons of God" means "sons of Seth also has other problems. This makes the passage say that mixed marriages between men and women is a bad thing and will only lead to sin. It also makes a big assumption and implies that only the sons of Seth engaged in mixed marriages, and not the daughters. And only the daughters of Cain were involved, and not the sons.
What's worse for this theory is that it assumes that only the sons of Seth were godly and only the daughters of Cain were ungodly. Genesis 4:26 proves this to be untrue when it says Seth's son Enos was the first to call upon the name of the Lord.
Gen. 4:26 And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the Lord.
If that's the correct translation then upon who did Adam call? or Abel or even Seth himself? There are some more literal translations to this verse and they read: "Then men began to call themselves by the name of Jehovah" or another says "Then men began to call upon their gods by the name of Jehovah. If either of those translations are correct then that says Seths sons weren't as godly as you think.
Why are the sons of Seth considerd more godly than Cains sons any way? If these men were so godly how is it that they lusted after evil women? That would make their act a sin and in effect making them ungodly before they even married these daughters of Cain. I don't know you but if you are a christian would you look for a wife in evil places, lets say among Satan worshipers or in your church?
If the passage was talking about human marriages causing sin throughout mankind I would think that first the evil sons of Cain would've lusted after the godly daughters of Seth. Wouldn't that make more sense?
Before I go further on with the "Giants" I think I should let you respond in kind with what I wrote.
Upvote
0
- Jan 21, 2003
- 23,432
- 1,799
- 60
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
Gideon4God,
Well first I don't see how in Isaiah 43:6 has anything to do with the "sons of God" phrase in Gen. 6:2 and in fact the passage is talking about Gods people and not angels at all. If one is going to argue that the meaning of "Bene Elohim" phrase in Genesis 6:2 doesn't mean angels of God then one needs to point to a place in scripture that this phrase is also used and the meaning being that of men. You can't use bits of the phrase or a single word from that phrase but the whole phrase.
Isa. 43 5-7
Fear not: for I am with thee: I will bring thy seed from the east, and gather thee from the west; I will say to the north, Give up; and to the south, Keep not back: bring my sons from far, and my daughters from the ends of the earth; Even every one that is called by my name: for I have created him for my glory, I have formed him; yea, I have made him.
This passage is clearly speaking about men and is used as an appeal from God to men to be witnesses of his omnipotency. Yes the Hebrew word for "sons" is "bene" and is used here but that is the Hebrew word for sons. This is no arguement against "sons of God" meaning angels because the whole phrase isn't used here. "sons from afar" is quite different than "sons of God" yes? How can you possibly equate the two? No where in that passage does it even come close to useing the sons of God phrase written in Genesis 6. Read my post to Crusader and you will find the passages that use this phrase in whole. Only those 4 passages should be used to determine the meaning of "Bene Elohim". They're the only other places in scripture that this whole phrase is used in the Hebrew and in the Old Testament.
Matt. 22:30
For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.
The key to understanding this is "but are as the angels of God in heaven. In heaven the angels are not given into marriage. This is made clear and I think we both agree that therefore in heaven the angels can not mate or marry. In heaven they are spiritual beings. BUT the sons of God that married the daughters of men in Genesis 6 didn't do this in heaven but on earth. Jude 6 says "And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation". These angels sinned by leaveing heaven, the place they were designed to stay, and giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh.
In the Matthew passage Jesus isn't saying angels can't have sex on earth but that they don't or can't in heaven. Likewise neither will we in spiritual bodies in heaven but after our resurrection and and the transforming of our bodies from mortal to immortal, glorified bodies, we will be able to marry and have sex, I do believe.
Although one would think that this was a good opportunity for Jesus to answer this question he didn't do so because in context he was answering the Saducees question about the resurrection of the dead, something the Saducees didn't believe in, and not the angels sin of Genesis 6.
Well first I don't see how in Isaiah 43:6 has anything to do with the "sons of God" phrase in Gen. 6:2 and in fact the passage is talking about Gods people and not angels at all. If one is going to argue that the meaning of "Bene Elohim" phrase in Genesis 6:2 doesn't mean angels of God then one needs to point to a place in scripture that this phrase is also used and the meaning being that of men. You can't use bits of the phrase or a single word from that phrase but the whole phrase.
Isa. 43 5-7
Fear not: for I am with thee: I will bring thy seed from the east, and gather thee from the west; I will say to the north, Give up; and to the south, Keep not back: bring my sons from far, and my daughters from the ends of the earth; Even every one that is called by my name: for I have created him for my glory, I have formed him; yea, I have made him.
This passage is clearly speaking about men and is used as an appeal from God to men to be witnesses of his omnipotency. Yes the Hebrew word for "sons" is "bene" and is used here but that is the Hebrew word for sons. This is no arguement against "sons of God" meaning angels because the whole phrase isn't used here. "sons from afar" is quite different than "sons of God" yes? How can you possibly equate the two? No where in that passage does it even come close to useing the sons of God phrase written in Genesis 6. Read my post to Crusader and you will find the passages that use this phrase in whole. Only those 4 passages should be used to determine the meaning of "Bene Elohim". They're the only other places in scripture that this whole phrase is used in the Hebrew and in the Old Testament.
Matt. 22:30
For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.
The key to understanding this is "but are as the angels of God in heaven. In heaven the angels are not given into marriage. This is made clear and I think we both agree that therefore in heaven the angels can not mate or marry. In heaven they are spiritual beings. BUT the sons of God that married the daughters of men in Genesis 6 didn't do this in heaven but on earth. Jude 6 says "And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation". These angels sinned by leaveing heaven, the place they were designed to stay, and giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh.
In the Matthew passage Jesus isn't saying angels can't have sex on earth but that they don't or can't in heaven. Likewise neither will we in spiritual bodies in heaven but after our resurrection and and the transforming of our bodies from mortal to immortal, glorified bodies, we will be able to marry and have sex, I do believe.
Although one would think that this was a good opportunity for Jesus to answer this question he didn't do so because in context he was answering the Saducees question about the resurrection of the dead, something the Saducees didn't believe in, and not the angels sin of Genesis 6.
Upvote
0
- Jan 21, 2003
- 23,432
- 1,799
- 60
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
Bluewolf,
Bless your heart Laura! I too am just a regular christian trying to understand God's word. My belief on this subject comes from many sources, so many I couldn't possibly list them all but it comes from authors and their books as well as websites devoteing to this subject. If you would like me to share with you some of these souces just ask and I will post them here or if you'd rather recieve a pm then I will do it that way too.
Bless your heart Laura! I too am just a regular christian trying to understand God's word. My belief on this subject comes from many sources, so many I couldn't possibly list them all but it comes from authors and their books as well as websites devoteing to this subject. If you would like me to share with you some of these souces just ask and I will post them here or if you'd rather recieve a pm then I will do it that way too.
Upvote
0
Crusader
Active Member
I see were your coming from naphilium although I do see two seperate geneology lines hear.
In chapter 4 v 16 it says that Cain went out from the presence of the lord and his genealogy starts there. It finishes around v 24.
Then it says in v 25 that god had appointed Adam another seed in place of Abel, which was Seth. Then it gives Seths genealogies.
By the time it gets to chapter 6 it says, and men began to multiply on the earth.
I suppose this is why I see two seeds and two genealogies and I also see that these two seeds could possibly be the sons of god as sethes seed that leads to Christ and Cains seed which was the seed of Cains sin whom were sent out from the presence of the lord through Cain, without an inheritance..
If the sons of god are angels, it would bring a lot of questions into it that would fill the page. I.E. Why didnt it just say angels like most other bible verses or what type of being are these angels to physically take wives and make them pregnant or could they have been aliens or from the stars or how come the scriptures say angels dont marry or have need of physical things???
Lots of questions if they are angels???
It doesnt say one is evil and one isnt thou, it says that one line comes from the second seed , the seed that leads to Christ, through Abraham and mosses and David and on to Jesus. Through all the elect , this line has gone. Then there is canes line that went out from the presence of the lord and lived without him and without his inheritance.
There is clearly two separate lines hear for me.
I know that there are different possibilities (including angels) but at the moment , I stand by this.
In chapter 4 v 16 it says that Cain went out from the presence of the lord and his genealogy starts there. It finishes around v 24.
Then it says in v 25 that god had appointed Adam another seed in place of Abel, which was Seth. Then it gives Seths genealogies.
By the time it gets to chapter 6 it says, and men began to multiply on the earth.
I suppose this is why I see two seeds and two genealogies and I also see that these two seeds could possibly be the sons of god as sethes seed that leads to Christ and Cains seed which was the seed of Cains sin whom were sent out from the presence of the lord through Cain, without an inheritance..
If the sons of god are angels, it would bring a lot of questions into it that would fill the page. I.E. Why didnt it just say angels like most other bible verses or what type of being are these angels to physically take wives and make them pregnant or could they have been aliens or from the stars or how come the scriptures say angels dont marry or have need of physical things???
Lots of questions if they are angels???
It doesnt say one is evil and one isnt thou, it says that one line comes from the second seed , the seed that leads to Christ, through Abraham and mosses and David and on to Jesus. Through all the elect , this line has gone. Then there is canes line that went out from the presence of the lord and lived without him and without his inheritance.
There is clearly two separate lines hear for me.
I know that there are different possibilities (including angels) but at the moment , I stand by this.
Upvote
0
- Status
