Howdy aall, new here,If we are to understand Gen 6 in this light, how do we understand God punishing man for something that demonic angels did (seduce women)?
Why I DON'T believe Cain was the "literal" offspring of Eve and Satan
- Thread starter kkboldt
- 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!
Well first welcome to CB good to have ya join us.secondly God didnt punish man man choose to punish himself by not obeyinghis laws and his word it was Satan who tempted man and man that fell
Thank you Kriss,Am still confused, maybe more so now that you bring up the Fall (3 chapters earlier). Thought we were talking about Gen 6, and the openning verses of that chapter. It appears to me that those verses are the foundation of a belief by some in gaints that are produced by fallen angels and women. 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. And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. 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.The very next few verses goes into why there would be a flood, to punish man for wickedness. At the very least, that discussion is a break in the general train of thought if we accept that the first few verses are speaking of women being seduced by falledn angels. Angels and women behaving badly (mostly angels as the women would be somewhat powerless)---> wicked men---> destory wicked men except for one righteous man. Not one mention of destroying/punishing angels or directly their supposed offspring (if we assume they too can drown - you said they were supernatural after all - then they are indirectly punished)Am just saying it does not flow. If the first verses were about angels behaving badly then it seems out of place to jump directly to addressing men in general behaving badly and punishing them for that behavior without addressing what the bad angels did in terms of punishing them. Dare we suggest God saw nothing wrong with what this views claims the angels did?To me sons of God refers to righteous men and the daughters represening the wicked just seems to work better with the rest of Chapter. God even goes on to address Noah, that he was not wicked, he was righteous and for that reason God would save Noah and his families. So from the same chapter there obviously were righteous men and wicked men at this time. Why couldn't the first four sentences of that same chapter be speaking of the same thing, righteous men vs wicked men?
Gen 6 is about that. that is what scripture says if you read back a few post you will these angles are the same ones in Job that Satan accompanied to visit God. Angels are also sons of God they were created as we were this term Sons of God is used on more than one occasion to describe angelsREPOSTfrom H5307Variant Spellings Variant spellings for this word: נפיל (Strongs and Gesenius) נפל (Strongs)[about] Outline of Biblical Usage 1) giants, the NephilimJOB 1:6 Now there was a day when the sons of God [beney ha'elohim] came to present themselves before the LORD and Satan also came among them. (NKJV) JOB 2:1 Again there was a day when the sons of God [beney ha'elohim] came to present themselves before the LORD and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD. (NKJV) gen 6:2 the divine beings [beney ha'elohim] saw how beautiful the daughters of men were and took wives from among those that pleased them. notice its the same Hebrew word JUBILEES 5:1 And it came to pass when the children of men began to multiply on the face of the earth and daughters were born unto them, that the angels of God saw them on a certain year of this jubilee, that they were beautiful to look upon; and they took themselves wives of all whom they 2 chose, and they bare unto them sons and they were giants. And lawlessness increased on the earth and all flesh corrupted its way, alike men and cattle and beasts and birds and everything that walks on the earth – all of them corrupted their ways and their orders, and they began to devour each other, and lawlessness increased on the earth and every imagination of the thoughts of all menNephilim =giants These were the offspring of these unholy unions And there were giants in the Land in those Days
Kriss,That is ok if you want to believe that I guess, we just have to agree to disagree. I get where you think scriptures say it, I just can't get the whole concept and the key verse in chapter 6 does not mention their fate apart from what God says will be done to wicked men.
(kriss;40878)
Well you being new here of course do not know us real well but I asure you I dont have much paitients for Bible twisters but that is yet to be proved.You must have some hebrew to understand this clearly And you are taking this verse wrong 1. And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them. 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.1. the first command given to muliply and populate the earth was given around the sixth day of creation when men were made. 2. there was a second influx of these fallen angels after the flood3. it was the entire reason for the flood the name Noah means in hebrew pure (of Blood) with blemish it wasnt that Noah was so rightous(though he was) that he was saved it was that his blood line had been pure unblemished not defiled by these fallen angels mating with daughters of men {Quote from Bible}Appendix 26. NOAH "PERFECT". (GEN. 6:9). The Heb. word tamim means without blemish, and is the technical word for bodily and physical perfection, and not moral. Hence it is used of animals of sacrificial purity. It is rendered without blemish in Ex. 12:5; 29:1. Lev. 1:3, 10; 3:1, 6; 4:3, 23, 28, 32; 5:15, 18; 6:6; 9:2, 3; 14:10; 22:19; 23:12, 18. Num. 6:14; 28:19, 31; 29:2, 8, 13, 20, 23, 29, 32, 36. Ezek. 43:22, 23, 25; 45:18, 23; 46:4, 6, 13. Without Spot. Num. 19:2; 28:3, 9, 11; 29:17, 26. Undefiled. Ps. 119:1. This shows that Gen. 6:9 does not speak of Noah's moral perfection, but tells us that he and his family alone had preserved their pedigree and kept it pure, in spite of the prevailing corruption brought about by the fallen angels. See Ap. 23 and 25.
Ummm... what? What did any of that have to do with the points I brought up? I questioned you about the sudden introduction of angel/human relationships in Gen. 6:1-2 as a new copncept for that time, and you wrote up the definition of Noah. I am still awaiting the answer to my original points.
Well you being new here of course do not know us real well but I asure you I dont have much paitients for Bible twisters but that is yet to be proved.You must have some hebrew to understand this clearly And you are taking this verse wrong 1. And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them. 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.1. the first command given to muliply and populate the earth was given around the sixth day of creation when men were made. 2. there was a second influx of these fallen angels after the flood3. it was the entire reason for the flood the name Noah means in hebrew pure (of Blood) with blemish it wasnt that Noah was so rightous(though he was) that he was saved it was that his blood line had been pure unblemished not defiled by these fallen angels mating with daughters of men {Quote from Bible}Appendix 26. NOAH "PERFECT". (GEN. 6:9). The Heb. word tamim means without blemish, and is the technical word for bodily and physical perfection, and not moral. Hence it is used of animals of sacrificial purity. It is rendered without blemish in Ex. 12:5; 29:1. Lev. 1:3, 10; 3:1, 6; 4:3, 23, 28, 32; 5:15, 18; 6:6; 9:2, 3; 14:10; 22:19; 23:12, 18. Num. 6:14; 28:19, 31; 29:2, 8, 13, 20, 23, 29, 32, 36. Ezek. 43:22, 23, 25; 45:18, 23; 46:4, 6, 13. Without Spot. Num. 19:2; 28:3, 9, 11; 29:17, 26. Undefiled. Ps. 119:1. This shows that Gen. 6:9 does not speak of Noah's moral perfection, but tells us that he and his family alone had preserved their pedigree and kept it pure, in spite of the prevailing corruption brought about by the fallen angels. See Ap. 23 and 25.
Ummm... what? What did any of that have to do with the points I brought up? I questioned you about the sudden introduction of angel/human relationships in Gen. 6:1-2 as a new copncept for that time, and you wrote up the definition of Noah. I am still awaiting the answer to my original points.
Because the defination of Noah proves that he was pure of Blood (not perfect without sin) We were always taught that Noah was rightous thats why he was saved.The hebrew say Noahs bloodline had Not been defiled by the angel that left heaven (their first estate) Another words it says Noah was saved because his family was the only bloodline that had not been mixed with angel blood for Christ to be fully man this could not happen So God brought the flood to keep his plan for our salvation through Christ from being foiled by Satan in effect God brought the flood to save us.Isnt God great he has been fighting Satan to bring us our savior sense the beginning .
(wynn14Him;41461)
Kriss,That is ok if you want to believe that I guess, we just have to agree to disagree. I get where you think scriptures say it, I just can't get the whole concept and the key verse in chapter 6 does not mention their fate apart from what God says will be done to wicked men.
Well its not what I believe that matters I believe the bible is the written holy word of God period Its what the bible says that mattersthese are the deeper teaching of scripturebut if you dont see it thats fine put in on the shelf not everyone can understand deeper things at the same level. Your salvation lies in Christ not in understanding the battles of war between God an Satan. So if you dont understand this its fine. dont worry about it
Kriss,That is ok if you want to believe that I guess, we just have to agree to disagree. I get where you think scriptures say it, I just can't get the whole concept and the key verse in chapter 6 does not mention their fate apart from what God says will be done to wicked men.
Well its not what I believe that matters I believe the bible is the written holy word of God period Its what the bible says that mattersthese are the deeper teaching of scripturebut if you dont see it thats fine put in on the shelf not everyone can understand deeper things at the same level. Your salvation lies in Christ not in understanding the battles of war between God an Satan. So if you dont understand this its fine. dont worry about it
This is the first time to read this thread. It is also the first time I have heard of of Cain being the offspring of Satan. I still can not see that even with all the evidence and scripture shown.I do believe in Gen. 6 that these are fallen angels. This is backed up with scriptures.If Cain was already the son of satan, why did the fallen angels have to come to the daughters of men? What was the reason, if they were already here through Cain?
Satan failed he tried to destroy the blood line of Christ through Eve but he failed. So then Satans second attempt was to defile all mankind with mixing angel and flesh blood but God brought the the flood and saved the Bloodline of Noah then Satan tries again by bringing a second influx of fallen angels unto men after the flood This second influx was much smaller and also failed. But the line of Cain survived these are the Kennites (meaning descenants of Cain) that work to this day to stop Gods plan they are written of in Rev. thay are sometimes called tares.
if a "deeper understanding" means there is a possibility I can write some humans off as being either more or less than human, then I do not want such an understanding.
Similar threads
