Sons of God in Gen 6:2

[Cribstyl]

Since the Trad section would consider this as genocide, I will post this here to get some feedback.

While I was doing some research about the individuals in the bible that are noted to worship God. After reading the names noted in "the begats" from Adam to Noah in Gen 5, the term "sons of God" comes up in Gen 6......


Gen 5:1This [is] the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;
Gen 5:2Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.
Gen 5:3And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat [a son] in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth:
Gen 5:1¶This [is] the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;
(let skip down to the last name before the flood....)
Gen 5:32And Noah was five hundred years old: and Noah begat Shem, Ham, and Japheth.
Gen 6:1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
Gen 6:2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they [were] fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.


If we consider that chapter 6 dialog is in continuation of chapter 5, we can see that "the sons of God" is the given lineage from God to Adam and from Adam to Seth and all the way down to Noah. They all lived hundreds of years on the earth.
All those in the geneology, I considered as the sons of God.

What reenforces my possition is when "the begat" in Lukes geneology includes "son of God".

Luk 3:37 Which was [the son] of Mathusala, which was [the son] of Enoch, which was [the son] of Jared, which was [the son] of Maleleel, which was [the son] of Cainan,
Luk 3:38 Which was [the son] of Enos, which was [the son] of Seth, which was [the son] of Adam, which was [the son] of God.
What do you think?


Do we have scriptural support to start talking about aliens from other planets?

Close study would show that the flood was detrimental to all life on the earth and nowherelse.

What are your thoughts?

 

[Laodicean]

Since the Trad section would consider this as genocide, I will post this here to get some feedback.

While I was doing some research about the individuals in the bible that are noted to worship God. After reading the names noted in "the begats" from Adam to Noah in Gen 5, the term "sons of God" comes up in Gen 6......


Gen 5:1This [is] the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;
Gen 5:2Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.
Gen 5:3And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat [a son] in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth:
Gen 5:1¶This [is] the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;
(let skip down to the last name before the flood....)
Gen 5:32And Noah was five hundred years old: and Noah begat Shem, Ham, and Japheth.
Gen 6:1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
Gen 6:2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they [were] fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.


If we consider that chapter 6 dialog is in continuation of chapter 5, we can see that "the sons of God" is the given lineage from God to Adam and from Adam to Seth and all the way down to Noah. They all lived hundreds of years on the earth.
All those in the geneology, I considered as the sons of God.

What reenforces my possition is when "the begat" in Lukes geneology includes "son of God".

Luk 3:37 Which was [the son] of Mathusala, which was [the son] of Enoch, which was [the son] of Jared, which was [the son] of Maleleel, which was [the son] of Cainan,
Luk 3:38 Which was [the son] of Enos, which was [the son] of Seth, which was [the son] of Adam, which was [the son] of God.
What do you think?

I think that you are right, Cribstyl.

Do we have scriptural support to start talking about aliens from other planets?

No, I don't think so.

Close study would show that the flood was detrimental to all life on the earth and nowherelse.

Agreed.

What are your thoughts?

Your thoughts are my thoughts on this matter. Yours is the best answer I've heard so far on this particular text.

Just wondering why the Trads would consider your point to be genocide.

 

[Cribstyl]

[/color][/b]

I think that you are right, Cribstyl.

[/b]

No, I don't think so.

[/b]

Agreed.



Your thoughts are my thoughts on this matter. Yours is the best answer I've heard so far on this particular text.

Just wondering why the Trads would consider your point to be genocide.

Well, to them, I'm the spiritually blind. I mostly get to see and address their questions that appear to imply whatever they want to say. They find it highly offensive when I start a thread topic.

 

[Joe67]

Since the Trad section would consider this as genocide, I will post this here to get some feedback.

While I was doing some research about the individuals in the bible that are noted to worship God. After reading the names noted in "the begats" from Adam to Noah in Gen 5, the term "sons of God" comes up in Gen 6......


Gen 5:1This [is] the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;
Gen 5:2Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.
Gen 5:3And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat [a son] in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth:
Gen 5:1¶This [is] the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;
(let skip down to the last name before the flood....)
Gen 5:32And Noah was five hundred years old: and Noah begat Shem, Ham, and Japheth.
Gen 6:1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
Gen 6:2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they [were] fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.


If we consider that chapter 6 dialog is in continuation of chapter 5, we can see that "the sons of God" is the given lineage from God to Adam and from Adam to Seth and all the way down to Noah. They all lived hundreds of years on the earth.
All those in the geneology, I considered as the sons of God.

What reenforces my possition is when "the begat" in Lukes geneology includes "son of God".

Luk 3:37 Which was [the son] of Mathusala, which was [the son] of Enoch, which was [the son] of Jared, which was [the son] of Maleleel, which was [the son] of Cainan,
Luk 3:38 Which was [the son] of Enos, which was [the son] of Seth, which was [the son] of Adam, which was [the son] of God.
What do you think?


Do we have scriptural support to start talking about aliens from other planets?

Close study would show that the flood was detrimental to all life on the earth and nowherelse.

What are your thoughts?

Crib,

The essential saving truth in the witness concerning these sons of God who took wives is that they did what they chose. The disposition to do what we chose is our iniquity. The doing of our will, even in the good natural processes, leads us into conflict with the will of our Sovereign Lord God.

This witness saves us by showing us our secret faults and leading us to Jesus and the blood of atonement, whereby our sins go beforehand to judgment.

Joe

 

[Cribstyl]

Crib,

The essential saving truth in the witness concerning these sons of God who took wives is that they did what they chose. The disposition to do what we chose is our iniquity. The doing of our will, even in the good natural processes, leads us into conflict with the will of our Sovereign Lord God.

This witness saves us by showing us our secret faults and leading us to Jesus and the blood of atonement, whereby our sins go beforehand to judgment.

Joe

Agreed Joe ...... Another observation is that God's judgment of all humanity is without a hint of a broken law that was given to them at creation. Would God not have held men accountable to the words of His law? Did everyone keep the sabbath?

From what we read, the world was not judged by the ten commandments, they were judged by the content of their hearts.

God explained that the hearts of everyone was evil and all men were corrupt.


Gen 6:5¶And GOD saw that the wickedness of man [was] great in the earth, and [that] every imagination of the thoughts of his heart [was] only evil continually.
Gen 6:6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
Gen 6:7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.



Gen 6:11¶The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence.

Gen 6:12And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.

Gen 6:13And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

 

[Laodicean]

Agreed Joe ...... Another observation is that God's judgment of all humanity is without a hint of a broken law that was given to them at creation. Would God not have held men accountable to the words of His law? Did everyone keep the sabbath?

From what we read, the world was not judged by the ten commandments, they were judged by the content of their hearts.

God explained that the hearts of everyone was evil and all men were corrupt.


Gen 6:5¶And GOD saw that the wickedness of man [was] great in the earth, and [that] every imagination of the thoughts of his heart [was] only evil continually.
Gen 6:6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
Gen 6:7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.



Gen 6:11¶The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence.

Gen 6:12And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.

Gen 6:13And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

Cribstyl, what defines evil? God's law existed from the beginning, and that is how evil is recognized, by comparison to a standard of good behavior; i.e., God's law.

The principles of God's law have existed through all eternity, and they were, at a point in human history, stated in the form of ten commands that apply as long as this sinful earth continues.

Note that before the 10 commandments were given on Mt. Sinai, we read: "And the LORD said unto Moses, How long refuse ye to keep my commandments and my laws? See, for that the LORD hath given you the sabbath, therefore he giveth you on the sixth day the bread of two days; abide ye every man in his place, let no man go out of his place on the seventh day. So the people rested on the seventh day." Exodus 16: 28-30.

So I don't think the texts you quote here undermine the reality of God's law. They merely point up the fact that in order to be declared corrupt and evil, there must be a standard of good in existence. That standard of good is reflected in the 10 commandments.

 

[Joe67]

Human communication as we now experience it through sight and sound are incomplete and temporary; yet are a God given necessity.

Prophesy (prophetic authority) and preaching (apostolic authority) are temporary. Knowledge and tongues will pass away.

When love enters, then the incomplete modes of communication have fulfilled their purpose and are rendered useless; yet not condemned or despised.

It is a decreasing and increasing process, as the new replaces the old.

Joe

 

[Cribstyl]

Cribstyl, what defines evil? God's law existed from the beginning, and that is how evil is recognized, by comparison to a standard of good behavior; i.e., God's law.

Thank for the response Laodicean, You've been taught many things that my 4yr old and 6yr old are also being taught in sabbath school. There is no scriptures to support it.

I think a better question is who defines evil, and the answer is; God.
Evil is the opposite of good.

In the pages of Genesis, God defines it as comming from the heart of man.

Whether there is a law or not, evil is present due to the original sin of Adam. True or false?


The bible says that God planted a tree of knowledge of good and evil. To consider that man was naked and inocent, having no knowledge of good or evil, is EVIDENCE that they did could not have a law to explain evil. Eating from the tree which God forbid them to eat from, was the SIN they transgressed.
For people to use commentary to inject the law being known by Adam is proven questionable by scriptures.
To say that Adam and Eve broke other commandments renders God's word as insufficient and only part of the creation story.

The principles of God's law have existed through all eternity, and they were, at a point in human history, stated in the form of ten commands that apply as long as this sinful earth continues.

We both cannot deny that God's Holiness and righteousness is eternal and part of the image and character of God. The wisdom taken from being created in the image of God, is Holiness and righteousness. To say that God gaves the ten commandment before Sinai is commantary that contradict the bible.

Note that before the 10 commandments were given on Mt. Sinai, we read: "And the LORD said unto Moses, How long refuse ye to keep my commandments and my laws? See, for that the LORD hath given you the sabbath, therefore he giveth you on the sixth day the bread of two days; abide ye every man in his place, let no man go out of his place on the seventh day. So the people rested on the seventh day." Exodus 16: 28-30.

Anyone who reads the context knows, that God said He was proving to see if the would keep this as a law or not,
Exodus 16:4Then said the LORD unto Moses, Behold, I will rain bread from heaven for you; and the people shall go out and gather a certain rate every day, that I may prove them, whether they will walk in my law, or no.

Whenever God gives a commandment for all the people to do something, it's a law.

We can understand in the text above that God was initiating a law to pick of mannar 6 day and rest on the seventh day.

Trying to link certain text to 'sabbath' and 'the law' is a game played by those with insufficeint evidence to support the law before it was given.

So I don't think the texts you quote here undermine the reality of God's law. They merely point up the fact that in order to be declared corrupt and evil, there must be a standard of good in existence. That standard of good is reflected in the 10 commandments.

You're good, but you're proving that the standards of Good and evil was not known until after Adam ate the fruit.

 

[Laodicean]

I think a better question is who defines evil, and the answer is; God.
Evil is the opposite of good.

I agree. And how does the Creator define evil? By describing the standard for good. That standard is found in the ten commandments.

And if evil is the opposite of good, how do you recognize evil if you don't know what good is? Good is described in the ten commandments.

In the pages of Genesis, God defines it as comming from the heart of man.

actually, when you say the definition for evil is that it is coming from the heart of man, that is not a definition at all. You are just saying where it resides, but saying where does not define the what.

What is sin? Transgression of the law.

Whether there is a law or not, evil is present due to the original sin of Adam. True or false?

False. "for where no law is, there is no transgression." Romans 4:15.

Yet Adam and Eve were transgressors, so there must have been a law in existence. Which law did they break? "Have no other gods before Me." When they chose to trust the lies of satan, they placed their trust in someone other than God. That someone became as god to them and was now in first place instead of God.

The bible says that God planted a tree of knowledge of good and evil. To consider that man was naked and inocent, having no knowledge of good or evil, is EVIDENCE that they did could not have a law to explain evil. Eating from the tree which God forbid them to eat from, was the SIN they transgressed.

Their sin was that of distrusting God and doubting His instructions. And that has always been our sin -- distrusting God...which leads to many sinful actions.

For people to use commentary to inject the law being known by Adam is proven questionable by scriptures.
To say that Adam and Eve broke other commandments renders God's word as insufficient and only part of the creation story.

We both cannot deny that God's Holiness and righteousness is eternal and part of the image and character of God. The wisdom taken from being created in the image of God, is Holiness and righteousness. To say that God gaves the ten commandment before Sinai is commantary that contradict the bible.

Okay, let's stick with just the Exodus 16 command. It was a command to keep the seventh day Sabbath holy. So if there was no other command known, at least that one commandment was known. Right?

Anyone who reads the context knows, that God said He was proving to see if the would keep this as a law or not,
Exodus 16:4Then said the LORD unto Moses, Behold, I will rain bread from heaven for you; and the people shall go out and gather a certain rate every day, that I may prove them, whether they will walk in my law, or no.

Whenever God gives a commandment for all the people to do something, it's a law.

We can understand in the text above that God was initiating a law to pick of mannar 6 day and rest on the seventh day.

The point being made was that the seventh day was for rest. Manna gathering was only incidental to the actual command to rest.

Trying to link certain text to 'sabbath' and 'the law' is a game played by those with insufficeint evidence to support the law before it was given.

I'll play along with your concept that there was no law (except the Sabbath law) before Sinai. So tell me then, which of the other nine commandments were okay to ignore before Sinai?

You're good, but you're proving that the standards of Good and evil was not known until after Adam ate the fruit.

Maybe so, and maybe that was the reason why the standards had to be clearly outlined later. However, note Cain's actions of killing Abel. Apparently, it was made known, if not already known, that to kill one's brother was a sin and that punishment was warranted. So I think that the principles of the other nine commandments were known early on.

Question: Can you point to any one of the other nine commandments, and say that there was ever a time, in the past, present, or future, when it was okay to go against such commands?

 

[Cribstyl]

I agree. And how does the Creator define evil? By describing the standard for good. That standard is found in the ten commandments.
And if evil is the opposite of good, how do you recognize evil if you don't know what good is? Good is described in the ten commandments.

Please post scriptural evidence to support those claims.
It seems elementary wisdom that good and evil are self difining words that are opposite to each other.
How do you reconcile the ten commandments existed in time from Genesis 1 to Gen 6? God sends a flood to destroy mankind and not one scriptures tell us about the 10 commandments or laws being broken.

I posted the scriptures of what God said the people commited causing Him to destroy mankind.
You're using eisegesis, by telling us what you think, rather than exegesis, simply explaining the text.

actually, when you say the definition for evil is that it is coming from the heart of man, that is not a definition at all. You are just saying where it resides, but saying where does not define the what.

I stand corrected. Here is what the Hebrew translation and definition of evil is;
ra`

1) bad, evil
a) bad, disagreeable, malignant
b) bad, unpleasant, evil (giving pain, unhappiness, misery)
c) evil, displeasing
d) bad (of its kind - land, water, etc)
e) bad (of value)
f) worse than, worst (comparison)
g) sad, unhappy
h) evil (hurtful)
i) bad, unkind (vicious in disposition)
j) bad, evil, wicked (ethically)
1) in general, of persons, of thoughts
2) deeds, actions

KJV usage is....
AV — evil 442, wickedness 59, wicked 25, mischief 21, hurt 20, bad 13, trouble 10, sore 9, affliction 6, ill 5, adversity 4, favoured 3, harm 3, naught 3, noisome 2, grievous 2, sad 2, misc 34



Evil in not related to law. Evil is a standard that's opposed to the standard of Good (good and bad).

After Adam ate from the tree, God did not say, Behold, man is to knows my law.
The text says that man is to know good and evil.
Gen 3:22And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

So, before the flood God's judgment shows that evil has overtaken man's heart. This dialog is God's language and not mines.
Gen 6:5And GOD saw that the wickedness of man [was] great in the earth, and [that] every imagination of the thoughts of his heart [was] only evil continually.

 

[Cribstyl]

What is sin? Transgression of the law.

That is only a fact after the law was given. This partial text from 1John is abused as a premise but it's not really saying what SDA is using it for.

False. "for where no law is, there is no transgression." Romans 4:15.

The bible proves it true because the forbidden tree is not in the law. God's word will not change. SDA love to push Matt 5:17-21 in peoples faces about changing what is written but that's what they do.

Same misapplication of a partial scripture as in 1John 3:4. What Paul is explaining in Rom 4:15 is "there is no transgression to count if a law is not first given."

Here is what another bible version say

for the Law brings about wrath, but where there is no law, there also is no violation.

Yet Adam and Eve were transgressors, so there must have been a law in existence. Which law did they break? "Have no other gods before Me." When they chose to trust the lies of satan, they placed their trust in someone other than God. That someone became as god to them and was now in first place instead of God.

That's false, "a commandment " was transgressed by Adam not a law.
Laws a giving to govern masses of people.
If God had said "all the word should not eat from that tree" then we could say a law was given and then, it was transgressed.

Their sin was that of distrusting God and doubting His instructions. And that has always been our sin -- distrusting God...which leads to many sinful actions.

The enemy knew to attack the weakest link. The scriptures show that God judged Adam, Eve and Satan, about why Adam ate from the tree.
Adding commentary about a law ignors and contradict what is written.
This also shows how people today are like the Pharisees, they use the letters of the law to condemn others.


TBC

 

[Cribstyl]

Okay, let's stick with just the Exodus 16 command. It was a command to keep the seventh day Sabbath holy. So if there was no other command known, at least that one commandment was known. Right?

Right, Proving when sabbath was first given is not a mystery in the scriptures. When we look at the law of first mention, we can see that Sabbath is define as a day of rest "unto" the Lord. They were commanded to do all their gathering on each days and do absolutly no work on the seventh day, in order to keep it Holy unto the Lord.

23And he said unto them, This is that which the LORD hath said, To morrow is the rest of the holy sabbath unto the LORD: bake that which ye will bake to day, and seethe that ye will seethe; and that which remaineth over lay up for you to be kept until the morning.

The point being made was that the seventh day was for rest. Manna gathering was only incidental to the actual command to rest.

Well, the people were commanded to gather a certain amount each of the day, gather a double portion of the 6th day. Yes, the seventh day was to be kept Holy by staying in their places at home.

I'll play along with your concept that there was no law (except the Sabbath law) before Sinai. So tell me then, which of the other nine commandments were okay to ignore before Sinai?

This type of reasoning underminds what is written. It's was never OK to sin. You're bringing to the table that the 10 commandments contains all that man should do to be righteous and Holy.

The wisdom of the bible presents that man was created in the image of God. God gave man free will to have dominion in the earth. God could have made robots, or stop Cain from killing inocent Abel. God explained to Cain that sin comes from within and want to come out and rule over us. The fact that God chimed in on the lessons, we should apply what is written to wisdom. The truth proves that keeping laws is not what God created man to do.

If the ten commandments were given to all of mankind why are these ten words called a covenant between God and the people brought out of Egypt?

Maybe so, and maybe that was the reason why the standards had to be clearly outlined later. However, note Cain's actions of killing Abel. Apparently, it was made known, if not already known, that to kill one's brother was a sin and that punishment was warranted. So I think that the principles of the other nine commandments were known early on.

Law is always, given to govern people or whatever. Once it is given then we can expect to see judgment by the law. How can you honestly say that God judged the world by His law (flood), rather than by the evil or sin they committed with out law. This is not my idea, that's what Romans 5 explains.

Question: Can you point to any one of the other nine commandments, and say that there was ever a time, in the past, present, or future, when it was okay to go against such commands?

This question has a motive to reason beyond the facts. There was never a time when commiting sin is OK. Since you have your mind set that sin is trangression of the ten commandments. our theology is what we should examine to be able to understand each others point of view.



Respectfully
CRIB

 

[Laodicean]

Originally Posted by Laodicean

I agree. And how does the Creator define evil? By describing the standard for good. That standard is found in the ten commandments.
And if evil is the opposite of good, how do you recognize evil if you don't know what good is? Good is described in the ten commandments.


​

Please post scriptural evidence to support those claims.

Jesus said:

"Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach [them], the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." Matthew 5:19

"Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment" Matthew 5:21

"Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery" Matthew 5:27.

"Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honour thy father and mother." Mark 10:19

Note that only the last six commandments are quoted to the rich young ruler in answer to his question "Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?" Mark 10:17.

Jesus was not doing away with the ten commandments here. He was promoting them as good and to be kept. But what was lacking was the young ruler's failure to keep the first four -- summed up as love to our Creator. Thus the counsel next given: "Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me." Mark 10:21.

The first four commandments consist of "Follow Me."

It seems elementary wisdom that good and evil are self difining words that are opposite to each other.

good and evil are defined by a standard of what is good and what is evil. What is that standard? How do you know when you are doing something sinful? Feelings? An external standard?

Evil in not related to law. Evil is a standard that's opposed to the standard of Good (good and bad).

And what is the standard for good?

 

[Laodicean]

"for where no law is, there is no transgression." Romans 4:15.

'
yet Adam and Eve and Cain and onwards were considered to be transgressors. Therefore, a law must have been known and in place if they were considered to be transgressors.

This should be a discussion of it's own.
Here is what another bible version say

for the Law brings about wrath, but where there is no law, there also is no violation.

Are you saying that our Creator was wrong to destroy the antediluvians because they had no law and therefore could not be transgressors of a no-law? The Creator is always right, you know.

That's false, a commandment was transgressed by Adam not a law.

a commandment is the same as a law. Especially if it comes from justifiable authority. One definition of commandment is: an order given by one in authority, expecting to be obeyed. Such orders are laws.

 

[Laodicean]

Originally Posted by Laodicean

which of the other nine commandments were okay to ignore before Sinai?
​

This type of reasoning underminds what is written. It's was never OK to sin. You're bringing to the table that the 10 commandments contains all that man should do to be righteous and Holy.

If we study more deeply into the principles behind each of the ten commandments, we will find that they do indeed contain all that man should do to be righteous and holy.

The truth proves that keeping laws is not what God created man to do.

the law said, do not kill. Are you saying that man was created to kill? Or to steal? I'm sure you don't mean that.

More likely, you may be meaning that God did not create man for the mere purpose of keeping laws. Right? He created him to be fruitful and multiply and to walk in happy relationship with Him. In that context, the law against killing each other, or stealing from each other did not need to be expounded upon, for man was naturally doing what was right .... until he turned away from God and began to live independent of Him. Then it became necessary to outline the laws to point out man's fallen condition.

If the ten commandments were given to all of mankind why are these ten words called a covenant between God and the people brought out of Egypt?

There were many covenants made in the old testament, not just a covenant in connection with the ten commandments. "Covenant" means agreement or promise. The ten commandments are ten eternal principles couched in the language of fallen man. And God made an agreement about the ten comandments, not just with the Jews, but with all mankind when He says, "I will write my laws in your hearts."

"But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people." Jeremiah 31:33

Do you really think that God wanted to write His law on the hearts of only the Israelites?

Laodicean said: Question: Can you point to any one of the other nine commandments, and say that there was ever a time, in the past, present, or future, when it was okay to go against such commands?
​

This question has a motive to reason beyond the facts. There was never a time when commiting sin is OK. Since you have your mind set that sin is trangression of the ten commandments. our theology is what we should examine to be able to understand each others point of view.

okay. What is your theology on how to recognize sinful behavior?

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

Luk 3:37 Which was [the son] of Mathusala, which was [the son] of Enoch, which was [the son] of Jared, which was [the son] of Maleleel, which was [the son] of Cainan,
Luk 3:38 Which was [the son] of Enos, which was [the son] of Seth, which was [the son] of Adam, which was [the son] of God.
What do you think?


Do we have scriptural support to start talking about aliens from other planets?

Close study would show that the flood was detrimental to all life on the earth and nowherelse.

What are your thoughts?

Getting back to the OP....

I think we should let the scripture interpret scripture... it's interesting how adding our own inserted word can make a verse mean what we want, but what does the Bible say..

Job 1:6
Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.

Job 38:7
When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

What is the morning star?

Rev 12:16
I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

In the above verses, we can see that the term 'sons of God' is refering to heavenly beings.

Also of note, is that through Christ, we become the sons of God as well....

John 1:12
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

John 3:2
Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.

Because of Christ, being heirs of the kingdom, we will be sons of God in heaven.

So, to answer your question crib, the sons of God in Genesis were the fallen angels... not aliens from another planet (don't know where you got that from?)

Hope this helps

 

[Laodicean]

Getting back to the OP....

I think we should let the scripture interpret scripture... it's interesting how adding our own inserted word can make a verse mean what we want, but what does the Bible say..

interesting that you both use scripture to support your positions. I don't think Cribstyl inserted his own words, Eastcoast. He also supplied texts to support his point.

Job 1:6

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

Job 38:7
When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

What is the morning star?

Rev 12:16
I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

In the above verses, we can see that the term 'sons of God' is refering to heavenly beings.

Also of note, is that through Christ, we become the sons of God as well....

John 1:12
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

John 3:2
Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.

Because of Christ, being heirs of the kingdom, we will be sons of God in heaven.

So, to answer your question crib, the sons of God in Genesis were the fallen angels... not aliens from another planet (don't know where you got that from?)

Hope this helps

great supporting texts for both points of view. Yours, Eastcoast, are the ones I'm familiar with as an explanation for that verse, but I've never really felt all that convinced that angels cohabited with men. I think Cribstyl's verses give a better alternative, that men who were followers of God began to cohabit with women descended from Cain or those who did not follow God's commands. In other words, the faithful began to be corrupted by the unfaithful at about the time of this verse.

Either way, I don't think it is critical to salvation which position we take. Both viewpoints can be supported by scripture....

 

[Cribstyl]

Getting back to the OP....

I think we should let the scripture interpret scripture... it's interesting how adding our own inserted word can make a verse mean what we want, but what does the Bible say..

Job 1:6
Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.

Job 38:7
When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

What is the morning star?

Rev 12:16
I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

In the above verses, we can see that the term 'sons of God' is refering to heavenly beings.

Also of note, is that through Christ, we become the sons of God as well....

John 1:12
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

John 3:2
Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.

Because of Christ, being heirs of the kingdom, we will be sons of God in heaven.

So, to answer your question crib, the sons of God in Genesis were the fallen angels... not aliens from another planet (don't know where you got that from?)

Hope this helps

Aliens from another planet? I'm saying they were men by what I'm explaining from the scripture, not aliens and not fallen angel.

Speaking about inserting words, you didn't point out what words I inserted that changed what is listed in the geneology from God down to Noah as listed in Gen6 and Luke 3. Actually I did allow scriptures to interpret scriptures.

ECR, Why do you feel that presenting texts from Job helps to understand what the "sons of God" means in Genesis 6?
It appears to me that mostly everybody knows that the "sons of God" in Job is out of context and speaks for itself.


If you consider what the scriptures say in Genesis 5, you cant deny that; Adam was God's son, Seth was Adam's son, Enos was Seth son, Cainan was Seth son, Mahalaleel was Cainan's son.................Noah was Lamech's son. Shem, Ham, and Japheth were Noah's sons.
Gen 6:1¶And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,

If you consider what Gen 6:1 just said, is a geneology of all women from Eve on down to Noah's wife. True or False.


Gen 6:2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they [were] fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

If you consider what Gen 6:2 said; "the sons of God" shows that Adam was God's Son and therefore God was the father of mankind.
Considering that woman first came from man is why they're being called "daughters of men."

These men (sons of God) choose the fairest women to be their wives. CRIB's commentaryIt would be my added commentary if I was rambling on; that they each had several wives but it was not adultery because there was no law that forbid having multiple wives at that time.) Since I I get bent out of shape when commentary is unsupported, just scratch that observation.
Gen 6:3 And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also [is] flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.
God's judgment on mankind proves that that God had to limit their lifespan.


Commentary: Anyone can see that God's dialog has not stopped talking about men and His judgment to change reduce humans lifetime on the earth.
Would God be a just God to destroy mankind because of angel who cant die having invaded mankind and infected man with another a mixed breed? Did Jesus lie to say that angel do not marry?

The following texts are important to apply to understanding, not commentary.

Gen 6:4 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.
Gen 6:5¶And GOD saw that the wickedness of man [was] great in the earth, and [that] every imagination of the thoughts of his heart [was] only evil continually.

I might post my understanding and comments later....

 

[Cribstyl]

Originally Posted by Laodicean

I agree. And how does the Creator define evil? By describing the standard for good. That standard is found in the ten commandments.
And if evil is the opposite of good, how do you recognize evil if you don't know what good is? Good is described in the ten commandments.


​

Jesus said:

"Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach [them], the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." Matthew 5:19

"Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment" Matthew 5:21

"Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery" Matthew 5:27.

It's not unreasonable to examine every word from Gen1 to God's judgment on manking before the flood. We must consider those lessons so we dont repeat the errors made by mankind.
No law with a list of the ten commandment are seen in formation at that time.
Arguments about this fact gets some people emotionally upset. It trully devides family and love ones, because some people wont let their doctrines become commentaries rather than scriptures.


God's justice did not claim that they broke given laws. God's justice help us to understand why "sin" definition always means "to miss", or "to miss the mark."
Having people take a partial quote as a premise from out of the context from 1John 3:4 should be examined fully.
Claiming that the definition of sin is; "trangression of the law" is not totally a false statement, but it contradict so many scriptures.

NT proves in clear words that the law was not given at that time.
When Jesus said;Jhn 7:19Did not Moses give you the law, and [yet] none of you keepeth the law? Why go ye about to kill me?

I dont have to argue about it. I believe what Jesus said about when the law was given.
When Paul said; Rom 5:13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
Rom 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

I dont have to argue, I believe whom Jesus chose to teach doctrine to Gentiles.

People who say different have to avoid reading the NT from any reasonable types of study.

By posting matt 5:19 without verses 17,18,20 we cant see in context see that Jesus was talking about both the prophetic content and the whole law written in books of the Law and the books of Prophets (Old Testament.) Trying to make it look like only the words of the ten commandments as a law that will never change takes ignoring the other commandments that Jesus mentioned from other books of the law.

Mat 5:33¶Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths:

Mat 5:38¶Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
[/quote]

"Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honour thy father and mother." Mark 10:19

Note that only the last six commandments are quoted to the rich young ruler in answer to his question "Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?" Mark 10:17.

Jesus was not doing away with the ten commandments here. He was promoting them as good and to be kept. But what was lacking was the young ruler's failure to keep the first four -- summed up as love to our Creator. Thus the counsel next given: "Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me." Mark 10:21.

The first four commandments consist of "Follow Me."

Yes, I can see the points that you're making. The reasons you're making those selective points from this lesson is, you do have an agenda to find the 10.com and talk about it.
You can't take the whole context and only make the same arguments.
The listing of the commandments concerning the rich young ruler is a lesson that proves, "keeping all the commandments in th law" is good but it's not what gets you etrnal life. Believing in Jesus to follow Him get's you into the kingdom.
Another lesson that Jesus was giving is; how being rich, inspite of following all the law, can cause blindness, making you follow the world rather than your saviour.

good and evil are defined by a standard of what is good and what is evil. What is that standard? How do you know when you are doing something sinful? Feelings? An external standard?

It's like you cant see these examples, Yes and No, Good and Bad, can two standards of one issue.

And what is the standard for good?

Only God is good, so, God would be the standard of Good. Can we say that "only God is evil?" if not, why mix apples and oranges just to make words seem true?

Good goes to heaven bad goes to hell. Breaking the law send people to hell.
Does keeping the law send people to heaven?

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

ECR, Why do you feel that presenting texts from Job helps to understand what the "sons of God" means in Genesis 6?
It appears to me that mostly everybody knows that the "sons of God" in Job is out of context and speaks for itself.

Crib, understanding the meaning of a hard to understand word, means going to other places in the Bible to gain a better understanding... this is what is meant by precept upon precept, line upon line, here a little there a little. What God desribes in one part of the Bible has to have the same meaning elsewhere, otherwise confusion abounds. One easy example of this is the prophetic term beast, we know that a beast represents a nation or government. It would be impossible to understand prophesy if beast meant one thing in one part of the Bible and another somewhere else.

The term daughters of men means earthly women, correct? By the same standard, we have to conclude that sons of men refers to the men of earth. Check out these examples of how men were refered to by God.

Psalm 146:3
Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help.

Ezekiel 2:1
And he said unto me, Son of man, stand upon thy feet, and I will speak unto thee.

Ezekial is refered to as the Son of man 91 times.

Also, why is Jesus refered to so many times in the NT as the Son of man when we know He is the Son of God... in Heaven He was the Son of God as were the other angels but born in the flesh he was known as the Son of man.