She means Noah's sons were of course from Noah's bloodline. However, Noah is only half the equation, so unless his wife were also "perfect in her generations", well, it's just not said.
Much love!
Any thoughts on this? No exploding heads please.
- Thread starter stunnedbygrace
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
- Status
Much love!
David in NJ
Well-Known Member
Wrangler
Well-Known Member
Thank God for modern translations. Genesis 6:9
CEV
and this is the story about him. Noah was the only person who lived right and obeyed God.
David in NJ
Well-Known Member
Even Better = Thank God for the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth, Who only leads us into Truth...........
"If you love Me, you will keep My commandments. And I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Advocate to be with you forever— the Spirit of truth. The world(unbelief and religion) cannot receive Him, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him."
There are so many places in the Bible where some are tempted to veer away from the straightforward meaning because something else seems so attractive. That Noah was the one last genetically pure human is a very provocative thought for some, UNLESS you make that assumption that his wife, and his son's wives were also genetically pure, then it doesn't matter, does it?
And besides, the Bible says this happened after the flood as well. Jewish tradition is that the angels came down on Mt Hermon, I think it is.
If we understand that Noah was the one righteous man left, then he, the patriarch, is preserving the worship and ways of God for his family, and their children.
It's like in Genesis 22, where Abraham tells Isaac, "God will provide Himself a sacrifice", many run with it as though God were promising to come Himself to be offered. But it really means that God would provide an offering for Abraham to offer to Him.
Much love!
I'd suggest looking at every place "sons of God" is used. There are a few.
As far as "proving angels never mated with humans", that's "proving a negative", generally considered impossible. Of course if the Bible says it never happened that would be the end of it, but that statement isn't made to my knowledge.
To me, it all comes down to what "sons of God" refers to, and that is shown by it's consistent usage.
Much love!
David in NJ
Well-Known Member
Concerning your last sentence/statement on Abraham & Sacrafice = BOTH must be TRUE
Take time to Ponder
God did provide Himself to be the sacrifice we needed so we could receive life, but it's not what that particular passage is saying, as I understand it.
Something I try to pay attention to is when truths are presented but verses are offered as support though they don't actually say that.
Something my pastor pointed out last Sunday on this place, If Abraham had gone to the wrong mountain, well, where would the ram be? Something else to ponder . . .
Much love!
Does it help to look at it this way?
There were first what would have become two branches or branchings out. But one of the branches destroyed the other branch. So the destroying branch was rejected. Then there was a new branch, to replace the branch that was destroyed. That branches name was Seth.
So there are now two branches again. The new branch and the branch marked ”rejected.”
The new branch is not to mingle with the branch marked rejected. The fallen angels/nephilim teach some men from the new branch to commit sexual sin with the branch marked rejected and they teach the deeper things of Satan to the women from the rejected branch, so that when they have their children, they will be strongest, largest and greatest in the land. An attempt is being made to make the rejected branch gain ascendency on the earth.
Let the shrieking begin.
There were first what would have become two branches or branchings out. But one of the branches destroyed the other branch. So the destroying branch was rejected. Then there was a new branch, to replace the branch that was destroyed. That branches name was Seth.
So there are now two branches again. The new branch and the branch marked ”rejected.”
The new branch is not to mingle with the branch marked rejected. The fallen angels/nephilim teach some men from the new branch to commit sexual sin with the branch marked rejected and they teach the deeper things of Satan to the women from the rejected branch, so that when they have their children, they will be strongest, largest and greatest in the land. An attempt is being made to make the rejected branch gain ascendency on the earth.
Let the shrieking begin.
David in NJ
Well-Known Member
Clue #1 - 'a picture says a thousand words'
more clues available - Peace and Thank You for your Genuine Love in Christ = much needed, recieved and appreciated
Wrangler
Well-Known Member
Mystics.
I'm glad you see it that way.
When my friend's church began a sermon series going through the entire Gospel of Matthew, he cautioned people, as he had in the past, not to read too much into the text. I forget the terms of history but he said there was a time when Christology really invented all these connections. Everything was considered a shadow of something else or allusion to something else.
At some point, it was realized "reading into" things is not proper reading comprehension. I've written elsewhere that a true implication is a necessary consequence, not merely a possible consequence. Christians are led to call things implications that are not but reading their ideas into the text. Rather than put it in context, they create subtext out of whole cloth. There is a lot of hyperbole in Scripture that modern readers take as literal. Perhaps it's the declining IQ over generations?
As Freud famously said, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. And of course, I doubt the KJV helped. For instance, in the CEV it reads.
7-8 Isaac said, “Father, we have the coals and the wood, but where is the lamb for the sacrifice?”
“My son,” Abraham answered, “God will provide the lamb.”
The two of them walked on
All we can do is search it all out and come to our conclusion. But here is a verse to consider, at the end of Luke’s geneology of Jesus:
38 the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.
This shows how men from the chosen branch could be called sons of God.
Well, actually, you weren’t the only person who hit on it, marks did too, so I gave my best answer with scripture in post #53.
David in NJ
Well-Known Member
i absolutely love your analysis given here and in some aspects, it is true!
Truth of whom God declares the "sons of God" to be in Genesis ch6 has been determined by God Himself and has been penned down for us to know = thus the Scriputural reference points given previously.
Peace
Adam was called the son of God having been directly created by God. Seth was not called the son of God, instead, he was the son of Adam.
Much love!
David in NJ
Well-Known Member
The scripture you quoted from Luke clearly shows that your conclusion is not in agreement/alignment with Scripture.
Take time to pray, seek, ask and above all = "do not add or take away from every word of God."
David in NJ
Well-Known Member
That's just not the way the Scriptures present it. Again, I'd suggest examining every place the term appears, and look at exactly how it is, and is not, used.
Interesting topic!
Much love!
David in NJ
Well-Known Member
You have earned a free cup of fresh ground coffee.
Our transport device is currently down so you may need to walk on over........
- Status
Similar threads
