• 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.

G

godenver1

Guest

I wouldn't say this theological issue is exactly 'essential' to Christianity but did you read the reply by ThisBrotherOfHis?
 
Upvote 0

Bluelion

Peace and Love
Oct 6, 2013
4,341
313
49
Pa
✟6,506.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
I wouldn't say this theological issue is exactly 'essential' to Christianity but did you read the reply by ThisBrotherOfHis?

funny he trashes the thread while posting in it, seems to me if it bothered him that much he could simply not post
 
Upvote 0

classicalhero

Junior Member
Jun 9, 2013
1,631
399
Perth,Western Australia
✟18,838.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
AU-Liberals
To be perfectly honest you really can't be dogmatic on this issue since the information we have about it is rather limited. Many Theological doctorates have been written about this and it is one that will always be disputed on both sides of the argument.
 
Upvote 0

Bluelion

Peace and Love
Oct 6, 2013
4,341
313
49
Pa
✟6,506.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
I don't know who you're referring to, but if it is TBOH, he may have done that but his argument still made sense. Classicalhero is right though, we simply can't be dogmatic on this.

still no one address the point in the book of Job, which is thee oldest book in the Bible, sons of God refer to angels, why does this change to me in Gen? I think it is easy to make the connection that sons of God's were angels. Also the reference daughter of men or humans, if they were men them self why call it daughters of men. I think the connection is easily made.
 
Upvote 0

Yekcidmij

Presbyterian, Polymath
Feb 18, 2002
10,469
1,453
East Coast
✟261,917.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others

"Son(s) of God" doesn't not always equate to divine beings. For example, all of Israel is called God's son. The King is called God's son. In the OT, being God's son seems to be connected with being chosen by God. Though there are cases where "sons of God" is talking about divine beings (Job as you mentioned being one of those).

So just because the phrase appears in Genesis doesn't mean it's automatic either way; the phrase has a range of meanings. We have to examine author, audience, and context to determine what the phrase in this particular text means.
 
Upvote 0

Bluelion

Peace and Love
Oct 6, 2013
4,341
313
49
Pa
✟6,506.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married

However before the Jewish race sons of God always referred to angels.
 
Upvote 0

Yekcidmij

Presbyterian, Polymath
Feb 18, 2002
10,469
1,453
East Coast
✟261,917.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
However before the Jewish race sons of God always referred to angels.

What does this have to do with anything? And how do you know this anyway? There are other references in the ancient world (before Israel came along) where "son of the gods" refers to a human; usually a dynastic ruler of sorts. Egyptian Pharaoh's were considered a son of the gods - in a quite literal way.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Bluelion

Peace and Love
Oct 6, 2013
4,341
313
49
Pa
✟6,506.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married

Give examples, Pharaoh is certainly not consider sons of God in the Bible and the mention of Egypt in the Bible is after the jewish race.

We are speaking of the Bible not other books.
 
Upvote 0

Yekcidmij

Presbyterian, Polymath
Feb 18, 2002
10,469
1,453
East Coast
✟261,917.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
yes that are in the Bible not other books.

So what are your references?

Your previous comment about Job being the earliest book of the bible makes me believe this is your reference.

(1) I don't think Job is the oldest book in the bible and certainly not written before the "Jewish race" was around. I think Job was written after the Exodus and probably some time after Israel was in the land.

(2) Presuming, for the sake of argument, that Job was the oldest reference in the bible to "sons of God," that does not automate that the same is true for Genesis 6. For one, your sample size is too small - one reference is a pretty slim sample size from which to draw any more general conclusions. Two, we must also not forget to consider the immediate context of Genesis as well.
 
Upvote 0

Bluelion

Peace and Love
Oct 6, 2013
4,341
313
49
Pa
✟6,506.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married

oh you don't believe it is the oldest book oh ok I don't care

Seems you are trying to argue and not address my points.

I am majoring In Bible and theology studies, This is the view of my school and my as per education. Its debated yes, but accepted by many, the fact God describes dinosaurs in it puts it well before exodus, and why people tend to except it as the oldest book in the Bible.

I saw you profile it says under occupation aggravating you. You enjoy playing with people do you. Sounds like the opposite of Christ to me

You say your christian yes?

I think we are done here btw I am not aggravated.
 
Upvote 0

Yekcidmij

Presbyterian, Polymath
Feb 18, 2002
10,469
1,453
East Coast
✟261,917.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
oh you don't believe it is the oldest book oh ok I don't care

Seems you are trying to argue and not address my points.

So you weren't trying to use the reference to "sons of God" in Job to correlate the meaning in Genesis 6? So what is your reference then?

I am majoring In Bible and theology studies, This is the view of my school and my as per education.

Should I accept it because your school says so or should I look for good reasons instead?

Its debated yes, but accepted by many, the fact God describes dinosaurs in it puts it well before exodus, and why people tend to except it as the oldest book in the Bible.

I think the references to Uz, the Chaldeas, the Sabeans are helpful in dating it post ~1000 BC and I think the references to Rahab are a reference to Egypt and the Exodus.

I saw you profile it says under occupation aggravating you. You enjoy playing with people do you. Sounds like the opposite of Christ to me

Oh my goodness. I've been a member of these forums since 2002; that was from when I set up my profile. I had forgotten all about it. I've changed it to avoid further confusion.

In any case, are you really going to question my Christianity now? And over the dating of the book of Job and Genesis 6?

You say your christian yes?

So you read one obscure part of my profile (from over a decade ago, btw) but not the others where I indicate that I'm a Christian? Why?

I think we are done here btw I am not aggravated.

I really not trying to aggravate you.
 
Upvote 0
G

godenver1

Guest
For the sake of friendly theological discussions I will say that I believe Yekcidmij made a good point when he said that one or two verses in Job isn't really enough to make general definitive decisions.

What about this one verse in Romans 8?

Romans 8:14
14 For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God.

If I read this, why should I assume that angels had sex with humans and gave birth to giants when I could read that godly people 'went into' fleshly people whilst aggressive people were on the Earth?
 
Upvote 0

Bluelion

Peace and Love
Oct 6, 2013
4,341
313
49
Pa
✟6,506.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married

The point I was making is before the Jewish race the sons of God referred to angels not men, so it is logical to think in Gen they are referring to angels. The sons of Gods after the jewish race were always referring to Jews, in the New testament it was anyone with The Holy Spirit. As Gods plan came to be sons of God took on new meaning and meant different groups.
 
Upvote 0

MWood

Newbie
Jan 7, 2013
3,894
7,989
✟137,541.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican


The punctuation in verse 4 has a lot to do with our understanding of this verse. Let me give it to you from the KJV.
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.

Now the words, children, became, and were, was added to help with the flow of the sentence. If you read the verse without these words the verse takes on a whole different meaning.

These women didn't have children that were giants. The scripture says there were giants in the earth in those days; Then the scripture moves on to the sons of God and daughters of men. When you remove the words in italics the scripture says these men were mighty men of old, men of renown.

But even so, the scripture does not say that the union of the sons of God and the daughters of men produced giants.
 
Upvote 0