- Mar 23, 2004
- 249,106
- 114,203
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Constitution
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Here is what it seems like to me...
The 3 dudes, to me, sounds like the Lord and 2 Angels...notice how Abraham says Lord? The name wasn't refused...remember another time when somebody bowed to an Angel and the Angel said not to do that? This person did not say stop...
And you see several references to Lord...
And when they go to leave, Abraham is conversing with one dude...calling him Lord while the other 2 went on their way...
Remember, Sodom and Gomorrah, it was 2 Angels that went there, told Lot and his family to get out...2 Angels...
So, it loox like 2 Angels + the Lord = 3 Dudes coming to Abraham and Sarah...my 2 cents...
That is interesting. I mean, I wonder if they *really* were speaking in concert, all of them at once ?What's interesting is that in Genesis 18:5 and 18:9 the men appear to speak in concert:
Genesis 18:5 And I will fetch a morsel of bread, and comfort ye your hearts; after that ye shall pass on: for therefore are ye come to your servant. And they said, So do, as thou hast said.
Genesis 18:9 And they said unto him, Where is Sarah thy wife? And he said, Behold, in the tent.
At least that is how the translation makes it appear. I looked up the word
I looked up the Hebrew and there is a specific word (Strongs 559) for "And they said", in both instances. It is the word 'amar'
Hebrew Lexicon :: H559 (KJV)
What's even more intriguing is that it is the same word used in verse 10 for "And he said"
Genesis 18:10 And he said,H559 I will certainly returnH7725 H7725 untoH413 thee according to the timeH6256 of life;H2416 and, lo,H2009 SarahH8283 thy wifeH802 shall have a son.H1121 And SarahH8283 heardH8085 it in the tentH168 door,H6607 whichH1931 was behindH310 him.
So the translator used the same word as both plural and singular when referring to the men(or man) speaking. Why, I don't know, but it could imply the Trinity. A question would be, if two of the men were angels, why would they speak for God, or at the same time as God?
I think it's rather clear that Yahweh was "there". Abraham referring to Him as Adonai might not be all that significant though, I'm not sure (you didn't make this point, I know, but I am making it lol). The other two men ... my guess is that they were what we call "Sons of God". That's my opinion. As far as what Sons of God actually are, I've not had a revelation on that yet. Just saying "angels" I don't think fits. The text refers to these men as mortals, Sodom wanted to have sex with them, etc ... yet they appear to obviously have supernatural properties, and may be "angels" in some manner of speaking. Idk ... I think it's crucial, but idkMaybe it's possible that the translation is not accurate and it shouldn't have said "And they said" at all, but rather "And he said" all three times. I don't really know; someone would have to understand the Hebrew to say for sure. What we do know is that at least one of the men is Jehovah:
Genesis 18:13 And the LORDH3068 saidH559 untoH413 Abraham
Hebrew Lexicon :: H3068 (KJV)
Strongs 3068:
Jehovah = "the existing One"
the proper name of the one true God
Later on, after the two other "men" leave, God refers to Himself in the singular:
Genesis 18:17 And the LORD said, Shall I hide from Abraham that thing which I do;
He also says that He will go personally and check out the situation, in the singular:
Genesis 18:21 I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know.
Whether that means anything in context, I don't know. It would seem strange for the Lord to say that if the two other men were members of the Trinity and were already headed there. We also see later that two angels show up at Sodom. That makes me more inclined to believe that the two men are angels and not the other members of the Holy Trinity. Also, if one of those men was God the Father, it would seem to violate the scripture that says that no one has seen God at any time. I tend to think only the man who met with Abraham was the LORD, the preincarnate Christ.
No I don't think this would make Isaac a nephilim lol ... not that I should laugh.Wow, I love when folks really get into THIS much study of the word...I really do...I feel I learn new things...appreciate the insights from you TIC and thesun...
As far as Isaac, I don't believe we've ever known of him to be described as Nephalim...that I know of...cause wouldn't Isaac have had a giant stature? I believe when the Angels mated with human gals, the kids resulted in giants...I don't recall this descript applied to Isaac...
In Genesis, Adam was allowed to give names to all the creatures brought to him (specifically, what had been formed out of the ground regarding the livestock, birds of the air, and beasts of the field. The serpent is mentioned along with the beasts of the field, btw ...). So naming things seems rather important. And as you already pointed out, even God apparently has many different names He uses with us.Never thought of that....interesting that there seems to be significance in names with not only us, but with God.....intriguing...
isn't it mentioned in Revelation that we will all be given new names?
This is a fascinating topic, imo.
When I did a word-by-word with the Hebrew Interlinear, I see several terms pop up in regards to the three men: Anshim (mortals) seems to be the one used in Gen 18. And of course Yahweh.
What's interesting to me is that these three (or perhaps Yahweh alone) claims they will return to Sarah and she will be pregnant. As though they needed to return in order for this to take place.
When we fast forward to Gen 21, where we see Sarah conceiving and the Lord returning at the appointed time, we see the name Yahweh mentioned again ... but now we also see the term Elohim mentioned, specifically in regards to what was spoken previously to them about the set time. It's my understanding that Elohim can also refer to "angels" or groups of "angels".
So it seems a bit ambiguous to me ... were the men with Yahweh mortals, or "Elohim" ? And is Elohim referring to Yahweh, the collective three of them, or angels specifically ?
The reason I find this fascinating and perhaps crucial, is because of all the "pregnancies" which seem to be crucial turning points in history.
Jesus is birthed by Mary, via the Holy Spirit and a female (obviously lol). It's announced by angels, etc and so forth.
Isaac is birthed by Sarah and arguably Abraham, however there is some intervention on behalf of Yahweh/Elohim ... whatever that means. And it is announced via those three.
So with Jesus and Mary, we have NO human male involved in the pregnancy of Mary. Just the Holy Spirit, and Mary. Angels announce it. However with Abraham and Sarah, Abraham is involved (a human male), it's announced by Yahweh/three mortals/Elohim ... and their involvement is somewhat confusing.
I'm not trying to open up a debate about Gen 6 ... only throwing this out there for contrast. In Gen 6, it's often debated if these Sons of God are spiritual beings/angels/etc which actually reproduce with human women. Considering that idea, the result was undesirable (the Nephilim). So, from that POV, you have an unsanctioned meddling with human females on behalf of these "Sons of God". We then have the earth filled with violence, the flood to wipe it all out, etc.
So when I look at it, I see a pattern:
* Unsanctioned meddling with humans (births) possibly in Gen 6 (the fallen ones). All wiped out. Possible spiritual beings mixing with humans.
* Sanctioned births with humans ... yielding Israel (he who struggles with God). Yahweh involved, possibly Elohim/angels.
* Divine birth, yielding Jesus the Christ. No males involved, no angels involved apart from announcing, Holy Spirit and human female only. Redemption of man.
I mean, I see a pattern in regards to crucial, debated, turning points in human history involving God, angels, and the birth of nations, and the symbolic nature of their names, their fate, etc. Again, I'm not trying to start a debate concerning conspiracy theories (I know what some of them are lol) or even if Gen 6 is actually describing "angels" and women making offspring. Just showing a pattern, and why perhaps identifying those other individuals in Gen 18 may yield a lot of insight. Personally, I have my own idea who one of them might be, but I'd be somewhat guessing ...
No I don't think this would make Isaac a nephilim lol ... not that I should laugh.
Awhile back, I was having this discussion with someone else who said they interpreted the story to mean that God "kickstarted" Sarah's menstrual cycle again. This is what is meant by "according to the time of life" and "the appointed time" and such.
So with Jesus, we have the Holy Spirit and Mary (human woman) directly. With the Nephilim (from the POV that the Sons of God are angelic or "other" in some fashion), we have "supernatural beings" and human women. The term "hybrid" has conspiracy theory connotations so I probably shouldn't use that term with that POV lol. With Isaac, it's arguably still "all human" ... with a twist. There was a miraculous intervention that effected Sarah's reproductive biology, so to speak. The manner in which this happened (Yahwah only doing it, or having an Elohim do it), may or may not be important. But there is no "mixing", arguably. Although in the NT, Paul does refer to Isaac as being by the Spirit ... it's a bit ambiguous to me if he is actually saying Isaac was BORN by the Spirit as well as two human beings, idk. I just think these are critical points in history, with an interesting pattern to them. But no, I don't think there is anything that suggest Isaac would have been a Nephilim.
That is interesting. I mean, I wonder if they *really* were speaking in concert, all of them at once ?
I am reminded, however, that in the OT we often see reference to God doing something, but then in the NT, it's revealed that angels did it (like the giving of the Law, etc). My take on this, is that when an angel has the name of God within him, He is basically speaking on God's authority. Or perhaps when we read in English the word "God", it is mistranslated at times (like with term "Elohim" for example, which again, to my understanding, can be translated to mean angel, or a group of angels, in addition to "God", etc). I'm not an exegesis expert lol ... this is only my understanding.
I think it's rather clear that Yahweh was "there". Abraham referring to Him as Adonai might not be all that significant though, I'm not sure (you didn't make this point, I know, but I am making it lol). The other two men ... my guess is that they were what we call "Sons of God". That's my opinion. As far as what Sons of God actually are, I've not had a revelation on that yet. Just saying "angels" I don't think fits. The text refers to these men as mortals, Sodom wanted to have sex with them, etc ... yet they appear to obviously have supernatural properties, and may be "angels" in some manner of speaking. Idk ... I think it's crucial, but idk
Well, one would think that if he were born by the spirit in a different sense, he would have already been the Messiah lol ... so that's why I think the reference Paul makes is still interesting. Because Isaac isn't the Messiah.I think Isaac was human, just God intervened to make Sarah fertile again. After all, God controls our health and if he knits us together (Psalm 139) he certainly could control whether or not Sarah is fertile. Isaac was born by the spirit in the sense that God caused his birth to happen. After all, if he were "born by the spirit" in a different sense... then why would Jesus be special because Isaac would have already been Jesus?
Besides, God told Abraham he would have as many descendants as the stars in the sky, so obviously Sarah didn't get pregnant by any of the three men or the descendants wouldn't be Abraham's descendants!
Yeah I'm not sure it necessarily works like a "puppet". At least not in my experience. But idkSuppose it's also true that instead of the angel basically having God's authority, the angel is just God's puppet and God is speaking through the angel? That's my guess.
The times I believe I have interacted with "flesh and blood" angels ... they looked like people. But they did a few things that people are not known to normally do lol ... like disappear with a large amount of the environment along with them, etc lol. Or appear seemingly out of nowhere.I am beginning to think that the idea of God and two angels makes most sense, but I'm not completely sure.
However, I think that angels often look human to us, and often appear looking like ordinary people. So, the idea of the two "men" being angels makes sense to me. I don't remember many verses to support that idea though, the only one that stands out to me is Tobit 5:4 and that may not be in your translation. I will look it up later...
Cool ! It's an interesting topicBy the way, I am very happy to see this much deep discussion on the thread. I have to admit that some of the posts here have been a little over my head, but I'm really thankful that God started this discussion. I pray that I'll learn this much every day!
God bless you,
Grace
I see where you're going! I have always tended to attribute all things like God. Why, I don't know, because unlike a human doctor He can be everywhere? I do certainly believe there are other spiritual presences who can make things happen - unfortunately, my experience verifies that. However, I tend to attribute miracles to God Himself, for some reason.Well, one would think that if he were born by the spirit in a different sense, he would have already been the Messiah lol ... so that's why I think the reference Paul makes is still interesting. Because Isaac isn't the Messiah.
As far as God controlling whether or not Sarah is fertile ... the crucial point there is if God did it, or an angel (or Elohim, or one of the others) did it. This would be crucial, in my opinion, because it would show that an angel was allowed to mess with human biology. If they were allowed to mess with human reproductive biology, then it's an example of a "sanctioned" act by God of such a thing. It links the pattern back to Gen 6, where we have a possible unsanctioned act, and it further links to the birth of Jesus where there is arguably no "sanctioned" anything other than the Holy Spirit being the direct agency used.
To use an analogy: let's say a doctor allows one of their nurses to examine a patient. While examining the patient, the nurse violates the patient and does things the doctor never allowed. This would be Gen 6. The birth of Isaac would be a *possible* example of a doctor allowing a nurse to perform a minor operation. The birth of Jesus would be the doctor performing any interventions directly.
But anyways lol ... I never suspected Isaac wasn't "human" lol, rather, was a "nurse" the one who performed the procedure on Sarah or was it the doctor ? That's what I was getting at
Not to interrupt the segue into a new chapter to study lol ... but yeah, I hear youI see where you're going! I have always tended to attribute all things like God. Why, I don't know, because unlike a human doctor He can be everywhere? I do certainly believe there are other spiritual presences who can make things happen - unfortunately, my experience verifies that. However, I tend to attribute miracles to God Himself, for some reason.
God bless you,
Grace
Lot doing that is ... beyond my comprehension. That is evil to me. Like, raw evil.Interesting, TillICollapse. I'll think about that...
Am I the only person who was horrified in Genesis 19 where Lot's just, like, "Oh I'll send my daughters out so you can have sex with them"? That idea of just handing his daughters to the mob like that is kind of weird to me...
And really this chapter manages to continue yesterday's discussion. This chapter has two angels coming to Sodom. I guess maybe God (or the other angel) stayed behind to tell Abraham about the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.
God bless,
Grace
Lot doing that is ... beyond my comprehension. That is evil to me. Like, raw evil.
On a related note however ... that is an obvious example of offering up your own loved ones to evil. But what about less obvious examples ? Do people offer up and encourage their loved ones to the enemy in less obvious, more acceptable ways ? I would say it's quite obviously "yes" ... but what would you (anyone reading the post and wishing to respond) say ? For example, what about offering up a loved one to Mammon/Money ? Or fear ? Or what about offering up your own self ?
That was crazy right? Offering up his daughters...being a parent myself, I couldn't imagine offering up my boy for anything...
The the daughters having 'relations' with Lot...yikes!
Whatever examples ya'll might come up with, but I was thinking more *subtle* things ... things that don't immediately deal with life/death or violent violations, etc. Things that people do daily, in other words.you mean like abortion?
Can of worms right there, as to whether or not the men and women mentioned in Gen 1 were a "population" and Adam and Eve were separate individuals from that population, and their children could reproduce with a population of people already in existence.Was incest done away with by this time? I know when Adam and Eve had their kids, well the Brothers HAD to be with the Sisters in order to populate the earth...but since the population seemed to be doing ok by Lot's time, was incest THEN a bad thing?
I think so ... but, even by believers do you think ? Lot was "righteous" after all ... so are there subtle ways in which believers sacrifice in such ways ? I'm still thinking less obvious ... not directly obvious but indirectly.TillICollapse, it happens all the time, doesn't it.....subtle ways that especially children are "sacrificed" to the various "gods"?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?