The lies about gen 6
- Thread starter theefaith
- 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
Moriah's Song
Well-Known Member
When God created woman from Adam, they were already one flesh & thus married. It was as the first couple that sets the examples for all future marriages by God in joining male & female in becoming on flesh.
Mark 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. 7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; 8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. 9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
Matthew 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, 5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? 6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
Matthew 1:24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: 25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus.
The emboldened words in that verse above means Joseph did not have sex with his wife until she brought forth her firstborn son, Jesus.
You can dance around that truth by going to other scriptures which cannot refute that truth, but she did not stay a virgin after giving birth to Jesus. She was a good wife to Joseph in building a family with him.
May the Lord help you see the truth in His words, but as it is, you can go to that other thread to continue this discussion but this is about who the sons of God are and they were the godly lineage of Seth that had replaced Abel.
Ronald Nolette
Well-Known Member
Now you are using synonyms when teh bible uses a specific term- bene elohim! Why would the sons of men be different than the daughters of mes? did these men not marry prior to this?
No it is a specific term that is used specifically in all other times it appears. mankind is never referred to as bene-elohim!
Well using human logic to try to define Scripture is a fools errend. God does what He does despite all the "fallacies" defined in human logic. Now you are trying to chain God to human limits.
but we must think and reason based on biblical evidence and not what "seems reasonable" to the human mind. their is an enormous difference.
Now you need to prove that bene-elohim is synonymous with children of god! Good luck with that.
Listen if you wish to believe that Genesis 6 is telling a tale of "righteous men" marrying unrighteous women and then coming up wioth other logical ideas as to why their offspring were the nephilim, gibborim, and sem that is your privilege. go for it.
But you use philosophy, human logic and possibilities to do so.
But based on how th eterm is used biblically, and why the offspring were so different and the testimony in Juse, I remian 100% convinced the bible is telling us that teh human race was corrupted by angels having sex with women and producing a hybrid race, that human mythologies speak of as the demi-gods.
At least I present the testimony of Sripture for my "assertion" . You accuse of interpretive fallacy but yet fail to name which fallacy! But based on yhour assertions based on human logic- teh JW's are perfectly correct in saying Jesus was just human, was an angel in hiw preincarnate existence (after all He is called a son of god). These are the results of using human logic intrying to rip into Scripture, your assertions are no more valid than the mormons, Jw's Jim Jones, Father divnie etc.
And who is the arbiter of my using an interpretive fallacy? Was he appointed the chief overseer of whether one is guilty of using a human created point of debating logic?
Ronald Nolette
Well-Known Member
And who made this guy the superior intellect in deciding what is an illegitimate totality transfer?
Kiss is philema which always means a kiss. Phileo is more about affection type love versus agapeo which is the highest love. When it is used with an action of love it can mean a kiss, or hug, but always in conjuntion with love! Kiss has its own unique word so there is a large difference. When kiss is from phileo it is always for affection as an outward manifestation of love.
Bene is sons. Elohim is God It is not a simple word but a particular phrase. This has been teh most widely held interpretation and the almost universal held translation in both th eOT and NT So it lies in expert and devout scholarship.
The concept of the line of Cain and Seth has held sway in small circles but did not become more popular in the churches until after the European Schools of Biblical Ctricism took root and liberalism started wreaking havoc in the churches.
You accuse me of using a fallacy- I call that "fallacy" being consistent! If the OT used "bene-elohim" to describe men then we have much room to discuss. But it doesn't.
BTW not once in the OT are people called "the children of God" As for sons of God, other than Genesis and JOb- nowhere in the OT and only 8 times in the NT But we are talking different dispensations with different rules governing each dispensation.
Last edited:
Moriah's Song
Well-Known Member
Certain individuals on this thread and "the other thread" will deny the truth of scripture no matter how many verses are put out there. I am amazed to see some of the stuff on these threads by "so-called Christians" that I just shake my head in dismay. But we do have to keep trying to bring truth to God's word.
As I said above, "certain individuals consistently use diversions to deny the truth of scripture" just as the serpent twisted scripture in the Garden and when he also tried three time with Jesus at the very beginning of his ministry and in my opinion he is alive and doing well in the church of Christ today.
Jhn 1:12...But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God;
Jhn 11:52...and not for the nation only, but to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad.
Rom 8:16...it is the Spirit himself bearing witness with our spirit that we are children of God,
Rom 8:21...because the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and obtain the glorious liberty of the children of God.
Rom 9:8...This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are reckoned as descendants.
Phl 2:15...that you may be blameless and innocent, children of God without blemish in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation, among whom you shine as lights in the world,
1Jo 3:1...See what love the Father has given us, that we should be called children of God; and so we are. The reason why the world does not know us is that it did not know him.
1Jo 3:10...By this it may be seen who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not do right is not of God, nor he who does not love his brother.
1Jo 5:2...By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and obey his commandments.
Gen 6:4...The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men that were of old, the men of renown.
Moriah's Song
Well-Known Member
I agree totally with you! Sadly, it is very hard for some people to accept that they can be wrong on anything.
Below, the Lexicon defines what an "angel" is and the Lexicon does not include Gen 6:4 as containing the word "angel" in Hebrew. "Angel" is not in that verse at all nor is it even "implied" in these Bible Dictionaries no matter how much certain individual try to make them fit into precocieved ideas of man.
Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon
angel
(1) one sent, a messenger, whether from a private person, Job1:14, or of a king, 1 Sa. 16:19; 19:11, 14, 20; 1 Ki. 19:2, etc.
(2) a messenger of God, i.e.
(a) an angel, Ex 23:20; 33:2; 2 Sam 24:16; Job 33:23
(b) a prophet, Hag. 1:13; Mal. 3:1(c) a priest, Ecc. 5:; Mal. 2:7
Once --- (d) of Israel, as being the messenger of God and the teacher of the Gentiles Isa 42:19 [But this passage peaks of Christ himself.]
Topical Bible Verses
Genesis 6:4...There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.
Smith's Bible Dictionary
Giants -men of extraordinary size or height.
- They are first spoken of in (Genesis 6:4) under the name Nephilim. We are told in (Genesis 6:1-4) that "there were Nephilim in the earth," and that afterwards the "sons of God" mingling with the beautiful "daughters of mens produced a race of violent and insolent Gibborim (Authorized Version "mighty men").
Giants- ... There were, however, giants before the flood, Genesis 6:4; fruits of the union of different families, and extraordinary in stature, power, and crime.
Easton's Bible Dictionary
(1.) Hebrews nephilim, meaning "violent" or "causing to fall" (Genesis 6:4). These were the violent tyrants of those days, those who fell upon others. The word may also be derived from a root signifying "wonder," and hence "monsters" or "prodigies."
International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
GIANTS
The "Nephilim of Genesis 6:4 are not to be confounded with the "mighty men" subsequently described as the offspring of the unlawful marriages, of "the sons of God" and "the daughters of men." It is told that they overspread the earth prior to these unhallowed unions.
Randy Kluth
Well-Known Member
It's not just one guy. I randomly looked up someone who could state the principle for you. It's a common set of prohibitions against making false assumptions when interpreting Scriptures.
And yet, the language from OT to NT is related and consistent, because one leads to the other. Sons of God in the OT would lead to sons of God in the NT who finally are covered with the eternal blood of Christ's atonement. In the OT these children of God have yet to be eternally covered, but are temporarily covered until Christ's ultimate act of redemption. So they are clearly related terminologically. Though Paul refers to God's People as "slaves" to the judgment of sin in the OT, he calls them "liberated" in the NT. Same people--God's family.
You will find as much in the OT Scriptures about being God's People as you will find about us becoming the eternally redeemed children of God in the NT Scriptures. Of course, you will undoubtedly reject any notion of family in the OT Scriptures, and ignore the idea that "God's People" in any way relates to being "God's sons," or "God's children."
But this just shows the poverty of your position, when you can't see that when you're God's People you are, in fact, God's children and sons. You just have to make the transition from temporary covering in the OT to eternal covering in the NT--related but a progressive cause.
Here is what my brother said, when I asked him about it. He knows much more about the biblical languages than I do, and knows some who are very skilled in the biblical languages:
"I heard two eminent OT scholars respond to this question at different times relatively recently. They laughed, I think, joking that few passages had been warred over more than this one. Why? Because there are good arguments supporting both views.
So, I think your online critic is premature in suggesting his case is clear because he thinks it is. I like the fact that you take the time to consult the early church fathers and to at least hear them out.
The NIV Study Bible has a succinct comment identifying how this verse has been variously understood. For now, I'm comfortable with being undecided."
Later, he wrote this:
"He's simply saying that the phrase isn't identical in the Hebrew in all three places, just as the English translation shows. In other words, each passage doesn't say "sons of God."
He's missed your point, hasn't he? You are pointing to expressions that differ but may be understood as synonymous. Context would be critical along with the way these words are used elsewhere in arguing whether the phrases are interchangeable. A scholar might find that they are while suggesting reasons for the variation in wording in each context."
So, you're saying, Who dares to create a rule like the "totality transfer fallacy?" The answer should be, Why shouldn't anybody make such a rule? It's entirely reasonable. It doesn't make your opinion wrong. It just produces enough doubt for us to consider how strong your position is, or isn't.
Randy Kluth
Well-Known Member
Though that's true, I wouldn't apply this necessarily in this case. The subject we're discussing, namely Gen 6, is a perfectly arguable passage among genuine Christians. Good friends of mine and I completely disagree on this passage!
But we should be aware that some are not open to friendly, Christian discussion, even when they claim to be "Christian." My purpose here is not to attack genuine or false Christians, but only to examine the Scriptures honestly.
I feel that God will help us in part to bring out truths that will benefit all of us, whether to correct an error or to reinforce a belief. The idea is to become more like Christ, and not just to be right.
Randy Kluth
Well-Known Member
Your argument is more one of *context,* rather than lexical word use. But assuming the context is as you suggest, then yes, the word use would not consistently apply any of the terms for "angels." Same with the word "giants." It speaks, I think, more of "men of fame," or "conquerors," then mutant creatures.
So the argument from our detractors is not based on context, but instead, on lexical word use when they think angels are in this passage. They totally transfer the meaning of "sons of God" from Job 1 to Gen 6. But since this defies the context of Gen 6, as you suggest, the sense of angels being the "sons of God" in that passage doesn't make sense to either of us.
Terms mean what they mean in context. In the context of Genesis, God is producing from mankind His own family, His own sons and daughters, His own children. He is not doing this through angels, even if at some other time and in some other context He did that.
Thanks much!
Moriah's Song
Well-Known Member
I found a very informative article from the McClintock and Strong Biblical Cyclopedia that covers the different interpreters positions on Gen.6:4. It was a little too lengthy to post here so I am posting only the portion that they agree with in relations to verse 4....
"...Thomas Aquinas (pars i, qu. 51, art. 3) argues that it was possible for angels to have children by mortal women. This theory, however, must be abandoned as scientifically preposterous. Two modern poets, Byron (in his drama of Cain) and Moore (in his Loves of the Angels), have nevertheless availed themselves of this last interpretation for the purpose of their poems.
3. The interpretation, however, which is now most generally received is that which understands by "the sons of the Elohim" the family and descendants of Seth, and by "the daughters of man (Adam)," the women of the family of Cain. So the Clementine Recognitions interpret "the sons of the Elohim" as "homines justi qui angelorum vixerant vitam." So Ephrem, and the Christian Adam-book of the East; so also Theodoret, Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, Jerome, Augustine, and others; and in later times Luther, Melancthon, Calvin, and a whole host of recent commentators. They all suppose that whereas the two lines of descent from Adam — the family of Seth who preserved their faith in God, and the family of Cain who lived only for this world — had hitherto kept distinct, now a mingling of the two races took place which resulted in the thorough corruption of the former, who. falling away, plunged into the deepest abyss of wickedness, and that it was this universal corruption which provoked the judgment of the Flood."
The children from Adam to Enoch would have been that generation as I see it.
3. The interpretation, however, which is now most generally received is that which understands by "the sons of the Elohim" the family and descendants of Seth, and by "the daughters of man (Adam)," the women of the family of Cain. So the Clementine Recognitions interpret "the sons of the Elohim" as "homines justi qui angelorum vixerant vitam." So Ephrem, and the Christian Adam-book of the East; so also Theodoret, Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, Jerome, Augustine, and others; and in later times Luther, Melancthon, Calvin, and a whole host of recent commentators. They all suppose that whereas the two lines of descent from Adam — the family of Seth who preserved their faith in God, and the family of Cain who lived only for this world — had hitherto kept distinct, now a mingling of the two races took place which resulted in the thorough corruption of the former, who. falling away, plunged into the deepest abyss of wickedness, and that it was this universal corruption which provoked the judgment of the Flood."
The children from Adam to Enoch would have been that generation as I see it.
Randy Kluth
Well-Known Member
Sounds reasonable. And it helps to know that so many Christian leaders and scholars see it that way too! It just makes little sense to me for the Bible to switch gears to the discussion of angels and humans mixing and procreating. Sounds like a fable, and a twisted one at that! It just doesn't fit into the flow of ideas from Genesis 1 to 6.
Ronald Nolette
Well-Known Member
And how does he determine what is a right assumption. I base mine based on teh use of language as written in Scripture and the description of the results of these unions.
Once again every other reference of bene-elohim is angels and there is no term "children of God" found in the OT. These things make powerful prima facie evidence.
Not even close!
The people of God in the OT were the wife of Jehovah- in the New, the espoused to Jesus.
the way god dealt with tehse two people is different and not consistent. One was a nation of peoples, the other a peoples with no nation.
No where in the OT do you find the phrase "sons of God" other than the references already cited. In the OT& no where are Gods people called teh children of God.
If you wish to cite consistency- be consistent with it. If a phrase only appears 4 times in a testament, and three times it refers to angels, you need strong evidence to say the fourth mention is not angels. No one has given that yet. Just maybes, possibly, rules of debating, this is not even weak evidence but possibilities that require real evidence to move themn to probability then to certainty.
The whole descendants of Cain/Seth requires adding so many things not listed in Scripture as to make it completely dubious.
1. No children of Cain were righteous.
2. No children of Seth were unirghteous.
3. Somehow Cains daughters were prettier (though Scripture says just daughters of men which would include Seths descendants)
4 the fallen ones or nephilim are the result of these unions, so aren't the gibborim and the sem.
Well you should not be so quick to commit the sin of presumption about what I will or will not undoubtedly reject. Here you opened mouth and inserted foot. but no where in OY theology do you find the concept of the new birth and being transformed from a child of the devil to a child of God! Teh realtionship of God with Israel was and is vastly different than the relationship of God to teh church.
but once again we are referring to a very specific and limited use phrase "bene-elohim."
Yes all your philosophizing has opened a "possibility" it could mean something different- but that is all of you defending this position have done, is open a possibility. Now you must show why your "possibility" is an "actuality" given the very limited and specific use of the phrase "bene-elohim.
Remember the testimony from Jude as well. those angels are now locked in darkness because they left their domain and kept not their first place. Jude then compares what they did with the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah---namely going after strange flesh!
Jude 6-7
King James Version
6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.
7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
Genesis six, if we take language used as was the rest of the times it was used shows the only time angels went after strange flesh. And this is without finding possibilities, probabilities, logical errors or anything else. Just taking Scripture and comparing it with Scripture.
Randy Kluth
Well-Known Member
I've already answered this. The use of one form of a term does not mean it can be distinguished from other terms with the same meaning. That is, a term that is not identical with another related term does not mean they are not generally synonymous in meaning. It requires a deeper understanding of the language and grammatical matters, and I don't have that. I don't think you do either.
Since Jesus is the Word of God, I see little difference between being the wife of God and being the bride of Christ.
Since God inserted His Kingdom into Israel in the OT, and transferred that Kingdom to other nations in the NT, I see no significant difference. God remains the same in both testaments.
Again, you're *assuming* that the term in Gen 6 refers to angels. That is an *assumption!* If it referred to men, then your argument fails!
My arguments do not rest on the righteousness of the sons of God through Seth's line. The whole point is that they corrupted their worship of God, choosing to contaminate it with their lust for beautiful women.
Not at all. Jesus is the same, yesterday, and forever. God doesn't change. His plan progresses, but His character does not change. His dealings with people in the OT are the same, generally speaking, as His dealings with people in the NT. There is only this matter of progress in God's plan to bring a witness to a reluctant, resistant world. That resistance was as true in Israel as it is now in the rest of the world.
Your argument rests with a lexical argument. My argument rests with an argument over context. Angels has no place in Genesis 6 in this regard. It has to do with Man losing his worship for God, and compromising with a corrupt world. Just my opinion, and I'm sticking with it.
But that is not even in the Bible text. Instead "the sons of God" (angels) are contrasted with "the daughters of men". Therefore both Peter and Jude tell us the fate of these angels "which sinned" and "kept not their first estate". Both times they are connected to "going after strange flesh" and "fornication".
Moriah's Song
Well-Known Member
Where do you see the word "angels" in Gen 6:4. Look at the chart above. Was there not enough "humans" from 7 generations on the earth for "sons of God" to inter-marry with "the daughters" of men? Seem to me there was an abundance of good and bad people to intermarry with humans; especially when no angels are not in the context at all.
Randy Kluth
Well-Known Member
No, "(angels)" is not in the biblical text!
The sons of God are contrasted with the daughters of men because men of God were falling for pagan women. Peter and Jude may have compared men and angels, but they didn't confuse them, as you are. One thing is very clear to me. Just as angels left their first estate with God to become rebels so men of God have been willing to abandon their righteousness to indulge in lust and sin. But whereas angels have made final decisions, men are redeemable, and can be saved by appealing to Christ's Gospel.I don't believe either Peter or Jude described angels as "fornicators." That is an assumption you make based on your particular view.
You don't have to see the word "angels" here. Please go to 2 Peter and Jude to see "angels" there. And your last statement indicates that you don't really understand this issue.
This is total nonsense. What does this mean "the angels which kept not their first estate"?
"The angels which kept not their first estate, who left their own habitation, and who are now chained, are the same angels of whom Peter speaks, those who brought in the corruption described in the opening verses of Genesis 6:1-22. They gave up the place assigned to them." -- Gaebelein's Commentary
Randy Kluth
Well-Known Member
It's not nonsense, brother. There are differing views between good scholars and between good Christians. It's not the poverty of the knowledge nor poverty of the arguments, but rather, a difference in presuppositions that renders this a reasonable argument--not a nonsensical one. It is not, in other words, plainly obvious that what you're saying is right, nor does any commentator's statement decide the issue for all of the other commentators.
We all agree angels left their original estate with God in paradise, choosing instead to become their own "gods," choosing as they see fit, instead of consulting God in all of their choices. Doing this in no way insinuates that they are sexual beings, though that may or may not be true.
The determining argument for me is that Jesus said we as men are going to be glorified and become like the angels, no longer procreating or having mates. That means for me that the angels are not sexual beings.
So when I read Gen 6 my presupposition is that this is all about humanity, and not about angels. Introducing the idea of humans and angels mating sounds purely like an insertion into an otherwise normal text about human corruption.
If God wanted to be crystal clear, He could've just said that angels mated with people. But He didn't say this. Instead He used a term like "Sons of God" who dallied with "Daughters of Men." That sounds like a tryst between humans.
- Status
Similar threads
