Genesis 6 questions

[r3b0rn]

Great post, very interesting. Thanks alot SummaScriptura

 

[Assyrian]

I think early Jewish writings and interpretation of the Tanack are a really great resource for understanding NT theology, understanding how the NT writers understood the OT passages that were quoting. NT theology has deep roots in the theology of the Pharisees. The whole theology of the resurrection came from the Pharisee revival of the previous centuries. At the same time we need to be careful. Not everything was taken onboard wholesale. Paul also warns us to beware of Jewish myths so we cannot take everything they taught at face value.

Though the interpretation of angels having sex with human women and having children born to the union was around in the period, more sober religious works like the Targum, translations of the OT into Aramaic, interpreted the controversial bene elohim 'sons of God' as sons of rulers or sons mighty men.

http://targum.info/?page_id=8

THE TARGUM OF PALESTINE,
COMMONLY ENTITLED
THE TARGUM OF JONATHAN BEN UZZIEL
VI. And it was when the sons of men began to multiply upon the face of the earth, and fair daughters were born to them; and the sons of the greatsaw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and painted, and curled, walking with revelation of the flesh, and with imaginations of wickedness; that they took them wives of all who pleased them.

THE TARGUM OF ONKELOS
VI. And Noach was a son of five hundred years, and Noach begat Shem, Cham, and Japheth. And it was when the sons of men had begun to multiply upon the earth, and daughters were born to them, that the sons of the mighty [32] saw the daughters of men that they were beautiful, and took to them wives of all whom they pleased

[32] Bnei rabrebaia. The Sam. Vers. reads, "sons of the rulers."

 

[Terral]

Hi Metherion:

In Genesis 6, what exactly are the "sons of heaven" referred to as taking human wives? 6:2

Your ‘sons of heaven’ transliteration is inaccurate and should say the “sons of God” (ben ‘elohiym = link). These are not the sons of God like the believers in our Gospel (Rom. 8:14, 19, Gal. 3:26, etc.), but are sons of the ‘god of this world’ (2Cor. 4:3-4) sowing corrupt tares among the righteous branch in order to circumvent the curse of Genesis 3:15. Michael the Archangel battled with the Dragon (Rev 12:7), “so that the serpent of old who is called the devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was thrown down to the earth, AND his angels were thrown down with him.” Rev. 12:9. These ‘sons of god’ represent the angels and hosts of ‘their’ living god very much incarnate “IN” them (Fig. 3). Yes. These sons of Satan could go into human women hosts, because God had yet to seal up the portal gateway between the heavens and the earth signified by the addition of the seventh sign of the Covenant:


[FONT=&quot]

"I establish My covenant with you; and all flesh shall never again be cut off by the water of the flood, neither shall there again be a flood to destroy the earth. God said, "This is the sign of the covenant which I am making between Me and you and every living creature that is with you, for all successive generations; I set My bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a sign of a covenant between Me and the earth. It shall come about, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow will be seen in the cloud, and I will remember My covenant, which is between Me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and never again shall the water become a flood to destroy all flesh.”Genesis 9:11-15.

[/FONT]


Up to this time, the number of light rays divided from the Light was ‘six’ like the number of man (1+2+3 = 6 = diagram = far left). This ‘sign of a covenant between Me and the earth’ closed the portal between the heavens and the earth that previously allowed the sons of god to interact with incarnate ‘gods’ (Ps 82:6, Jn 10:34) on this side of the two veils (diagram = bottom of Fig 3 in blue "Visible Universe"). The Lord God defeated the devil and his plan to corrupt ‘her seed’ with his evil seed, which means He would no longer be required to destroy their seed (Nephilim) using floods, as His ‘seven-colored’ rainbow remains visible to men to this day.

What exactly are the Nephilim? I mean, it does says that they were the heroes of old, but who? Were they heroes of old compared to the time is was written or times it was told? 6:4

The Nephilim are the sons of the fallen angels (sons of god) and the product of Satan’s fallen angels going into the daughters of men. The members of Satan’s evil body are the ‘rulers, the powers, the world forces of this darkness, the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places.’ Eph. 6:12. These “rulers of this age” (1Cor. 2:8 = now passing away = diagram = 666 'man' on left) had the power and authority to fly down and interact with the daughters of men AND to manipulate the basic subatomic and genetic building blocks of this universe to manufacture giants to become their mighty men, as the antithesis of David’s mighty men (2Sam. 10:7, 16:6, 17:8, etc.) representing the righteous men of valor serving the anointed of God. Michael the Archangel slaying the dragon is played out in the story of David slaying the giant Goliath, but do you know why the child took five smooth stones from the brook (1Sam 17:40) before going into battle? That’s right! Goliath had four brothers (2Sam. 21:19-22). :0)

And why do people (like Noah) live for more than 120 years after God decrees that "My spirit shall now remain in man forever, since he is but flash. His days shall comprise one hundred and twenty years"? 6:3

The years of a man’s life before Noah’s flood could last 1000 years, as Adam lived 930 years (Gen 5:5) and Seth lived 912 years (Gen. 5:8) and Kenan lived 910 years (Gen. 5:14), etc.. The Lord God shortened life spans to a mere 120 years at the time of Noah, which was reduced to only 70 years (or 80 due to strength = Ps. 90:10) for a majority of current dispensations of men upon the earth. Life spans will increase again to 1000 years and beyond when, “No longer will there be an infant who lives but a few days, Or an old man who does not live out his days; For the youth will die at the age of one hundred And the one who does not reach the age of one hundred Will be thought accursed.” Isa. 65:20. If you think things through very carefully, then death and Hades are thrown into the lake of fire (Rev. 20:14), before the New Earth comes into being in Revelation 21:1+. Therefore, the life spans of men upon the earth will increase into the thousands of years . . .

In Christ Jesus,



Terral

 

[SummaScriptura]

I think early Jewish writings and interpretation of the Tanack are a really great resource for understanding NT theology, understanding how the NT writers understood the OT passages that were quoting. NT theology has deep roots in the theology of the Pharisees. The whole theology of the resurrection came from the Pharisee revival of the previous centuries. At the same time we need to be careful. Not everything was taken onboard wholesale. Paul also warns us to beware of Jewish myths so we cannot take everything they taught at face value.

Though the interpretation of angels having sex with human women and having children born to the union was around in the period, more sober religious works like the Targum, translations of the OT into Aramaic, interpreted the controversial bene elohim 'sons of God' as sons of rulers or sons mighty men.

These sources you cite are post-2nd-Temple era. My point was dealing with the period of 2nd-Temple Judaism. As you might expect, everything changes after the temple is destroyed.

 

[Assyrian]

But they are very early and we know there was a tradition of Targum interpretation that went way back, possibly even to the time of Ezra. If English bible translation is anything to go by, looking at the works of Wycliffe, Tyndale into the AV and the revised versions, bible translation is very conservative. Judaism after the second temple period was not written on a blank slate. The teachings post Jamnia came from the tradition of the rabbis who brought them together. The difference in Judaism, apart from trying to come to terms with the loss of the temple and trying to deal with the annoying Christian sect, was that the bewildering array of sects in the 2nd temple period was whittled down into a more standard form.

The danger if you see the Dead Sea Scrolls as your example of the second temple period, is that you are instead taking one fringe sect as representative of the whole. Clearly the angelic interpretation of the bene elohim was current in the second temple period, but if very different Targums of Jonathan and Onkelos both come up the same interpretation of bene elohim as the sons of powerful men it is very likely a rabbinical tradition that goes back to the second temple period too.

 

[SummaScriptura]

But they are very early and we know there was a tradition of Targum interpretation that went way back, possibly even to the time of Ezra. If English bible translation is anything to go by, looking at the works of Wycliffe, Tyndale into the AV and the revised versions, bible translation is very conservative. Judaism after the second temple period was not written on a blank slate. The teachings post Jamnia came from the tradition of the rabbis who brought them together. The difference in Judaism, apart from trying to come to terms with the loss of the temple and trying to deal with the annoying Christian sect, was that the bewildering array of sects in the 2nd temple period was whittled down into a more standard form.

The danger if you see the Dead Sea Scrolls as your example of the second temple period, is that you are instead taking one fringe sect as representative of the whole. Clearly the angelic interpretation of the bene elohim was current in the second temple period, but if very different Targums of Jonathan and Onkelos both come up the same interpretation of bene elohim as the sons of powerful men it is very likely a rabbinical tradition that goes back to the second temple period too.

Roland de Vaux, a French Dominican priest posed the idea the Dead Sea Scrolls were the unique creation of the Jewish sect of Essenes; he projected Western ideas of monastic life upon the Qumranites. In his theory the Qumran site was envisioned as a scrollery where Essene "monks" wiled away their time in book writing and copying.

The theory still hangs on in some quarters, such as in the Dead Sea Scrolls official documents of those who possess them. But the salient points of the theory have all been essentially debunked by sound scholarship.

Current scholarship tends to come down on the side of the 1,000 or so scrolls deposited in the caves in the Judean desert were placed there during the window of opportunity afforded the Jews between the sieges of Jerusalem by first Vespasian and then by Titus. In this view, the 1,000 scrolls represented a cross-section of Jewish religious materials from across Jerusalem in the middle of the 1st century.

There was a re-evaluating of all things Jewish by the Jewish religious leadership after the destruction of Jerusalem; therefore, I think it is significant what was the thinking before that destruction, around and about the time of Christ and the writing of the New Testament.

 

[Assyrian]

Why would the Sanhedrin go to such an anti temple Essene site to hide their scrolls? Was there nowhere else in all Judea to bury them? Why not get them out of the country to safety? Or dig a deep hole in Jerusalem? There were vast caverns and tunnels under the city to hide things. The only people the Qumran caves were handy for were the Essenes of Qumran.

 

[Assyrian]

Why would the Sanhedrin go to such an anti temple Essene site to hide their scrolls? Was there nowhere else in all Judea to bury them? Why not get them out of the country to safety? Or dig a deep hole in Jerusalem? There were vast caverns and tunnels under the city to hide things. The only people the Qumran caves were handy for were the Essenes of Qumran.

 

[SummaScriptura]

Almost all of the ideas originally posed by Roland de Vaux concerning Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls have been knocked down. The idea that Qumran was the site of an ascetic sect of Essenes was the result of projecting his own experience as a priest upon people from antiquity.

The site at Qumran is mostly seen as simply a Jewish way station in the desert. The buriels of women at the site as well as a dearth of inkwells to support a community of scribes are just a couple facts which come to memory cited by those who've toppled Roland's theory.

There are anti-Temple and pro-temple writings which have been recovered.

 

[Assyrian]

I thought the idea of Essenes and their asceticism dates back to Josephus not a Dominican priest reading Catholic monasticism back into them. Anyway you still have the problem of thinking 2nd temple Judaism is limited to the ideas in found in one collection of books when there were a wide range of different sects theologies and interpretations going on at the time.

 

[SummaScriptura]

I thought the idea of Essenes and their asceticism dates back to Josephus not a Dominican priest.

Josephus does not associate them with Qumran.

Roland de Vaux did that.

It was a rush to judgment that stuck for decades.

The change in Qumran studies started after the scrolls were smuggled out in the early 90's and became available for a wider body of scholarship to view. A differenent perspective on the authorship of the DSS began to emerge from scrolls study.

Another change occured when Jewish achaelogists started becoming more a involved in Qumran excavations and research; they brought a different eye to the field and began to challenge many of de Vaux's assumptions.

 

[Assyrian]

But the argument is that a Dominican priest was reading Catholic monasticism back into first century Judaism is hardly very valid when there really were ascetic Jewish sects in that area at the time. That isn't projection.

I had a look at the website of the Israel Museum which houses some of the scrolls including the Great Scroll of Isaiah which says:

http://www.english.imjnet.org.il/htmls/article_392.aspx?c0=13657&bsp=13246&bss=13657&bscp=12940

Most scholars believe that the scrolls formed the library of the sect (the Essenes?) that lived at Qumran. However it appears that the members of this sect wrote only part of the scrolls themselves, the remainder having been composed or copied elsewhere.

Many different views have been proposed about the DSS, but the most scholars still think they were the library of a single sect, most likely the Essenes.

 

[SummaScriptura]

But the argument is that a Dominican priest was reading Catholic monasticism back into first century Judaism is hardly very valid when there really were ascetic Jewish sects in that area at the time. That isn't projection.

I had a look at the website of the Israel Museum which houses some of the scrolls including the Great Scroll of Isaiah which says:
Many different views have been proposed about the DSS, but the most scholars still think they were the library of a single sect, most likely the Essenes.

The Israeli Antiquities Authority is wrong-headed about some things, one of them being the "most scholars" part.

Most Roman Catholic authorities probably defend the views of de Vaux and Milik, another cleric who posed myopic theories about the scrolls.

However, the scholarship has definitely moved in the direction of tossing out de Vaux's views which were monopolistic for a long time due to the tight control the translation team held on the documents.

I noticed the Dead Sea Scrolls exhibit which did a tour around the States this year was parroting the classic view still.

 

[Assyrian]

Sounds like the new theories have a bit of a way to go before they become mainstream. But thanks for the information, I have only just dipped my toes into the whole field of DSS and hadn't heard the new ideas before.

 

[mindlight]

it is really curious that YECists work on the issue of the nephilim. For Gen 6:1-5 are pre-flood, Noah is a genetic bottleneck, yet the discussion ends up talking about the evidence for giants AFTER the flood as does posting #13 here.

curious situation. thinking about it carefully makes the universality of the flood LESS likely, not more.

Easy one - if the nephilim were sons of angels breeding with women then angels keep doing it. So the Anakites of Canaan for example and Goliath were a product of such an interbreeding. There are even warnings in the New Testament about women covering their heads in church services because of the angels so I guess we will have to watch out for some pretty tall basketball players - anything over 9 foot (like Goliath).

 

[billwald]

Angels have human DNA?

 

[mindlight]

Angels have human DNA?

Or angels can manifest human DNA when they take corporeal form?