Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

    For an ad free experience on Online Baptist, Please login or register for free

"The Sons of God are not the Angels."


Recommended Posts

  • Members

Younce says that the sons of God here ARE demons, but they didn't take wives, they took 'women', (mistranslation), meaning they possessed the women. That way they would produce children they could train up to be wicked.

Interestingly, the hebrew word behind 'wives", DOES also often translate to 'woman' or 'women', but the preponderance of times it is 'wives' and the clear context would be 'wives', being that it refers to seeing the daughters of men, that 'they were fair', then speaking of producing children in verse 4. To change it to demons and women, from men and their wives, is really wresting the scripture.

Many people argue that the "wives" should simply mean "women".  Frankly, there's no real way to debate it, it's a non-disprovable assumption.  The text itself doesn't specify.  I love Henry Morris' "The Genesis Record" ​And he argues for it meaning "women" as well.  Morris (although a Godly conservative believer) also maintains the view that it is demons interfacing with human women.

He makes a fair treatment of the subject and does a pretty good job explaining both sides of the issue, without abusing the "Sethite" view, even though I disagree with him on it.  That may be one of the books I most suggest anyone have in their repertoire if they want to do a serious study of the book of Genesis.

http://www.amazon.com/Genesis-Record-Scientific-Devotional-Commentary/dp/0890510261/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1432271070&sr=8-2&keywords=genesis+record+henry+morris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 I do not have a problem with the Bible you choose to use. The problem I am having is that you believe it to be superior to the KJV, which means the KJV is inferior, and therefore inaccurate. When you said:

You are inferring tha​t the KJV is inaccurate because it uses 'alleluia' instead of 'hallelujah'. Or maybe your issue is that we use the word 'hallelujah' but you think we shouldn't because the KJV doesn't spell it that way, but your Bible does, so you don't want us to use it? :puzzled3: 

Again, you are nitpicking. Oh, wait, I need to use Bible words exactly as the Bible uses them: "Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel." Matthew 23:24. 

​I implied nothing like that, but stated it for the fact that there is a bible that we historically have that spells it the same as we use it in our modern time.

That is all. Just the facts. Notice my words - "Interesting point..." in the quote: "Interesting point - there is one pre 1611 bible that actually uses Hallelujah."

Edited by Genevanpreacher
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Genevanpreacher,

I do not want to stir the pot  :stirthepot:  as you are somewhat correct, but, I would like to add my two cents :twocents: in this, hopefully, brief discussion. Li Bai Jia has a point, you were inferring that the KJV is inferior to the Geneva Bible. I also am of the persuasion that you are, "... straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel." Matthew 23:24

Why not we just call it quits and go back to the original posting about the angels?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Just to be clear, I don't embrace any of the corrupt Catholic doctrines, including the "Sethite" Sons of God tortured-translation of Gen 6.  I don't embrace their amillennialism, their doctrine that the "church" has replaced Israel, that the "Kingdom of God" is already established on the earth (the Roman church/civilization was the "kingdom"), that Jesus "rules" his earthly Kingdom from heaven, that when Jesus returns to earth he will judge all the living and dead and then destroy the earth/heaven and create a new one (as in 2 Peter 3), etc.

Edited by beameup
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Just to be clear, I don't embrace any of the corrupt Catholic doctrines, including the "Sethite" Sons of God tortured-translation of Gen 6.  I don't embrace their amillennialism, their doctrine that the "church" has replaced Israel, that the "Kingdom of God" is already established on the earth (the Roman church/civilization was the "kingdom"), that Jesus "rules" his earthly Kingdom from heaven, that when Jesus returns to earth he will judge all the living and dead and then destroy the earth/heaven and create a new one (as in 2 Peter 3), etc.

​Yet you embrace the "Catholic" doctrines of the Triune Nature of the Godhead, the bodily Resurrection of the Dead and of Christ, The Hypostatic Union of the "God-man" in Christ as being fully human and fully Divine, The Final Judgement etc.etc.

You are arguing "Genetic Fallacy" or "Fallacy of Association".  It doesn't matter that Catholics at some point may have articulated a "Sethite" view.  They might be quite correct about that.  Muslims insist there is only one God, Jews insist there is only one God, Catholics insist there is only one God, and Bible-Believing Christians and Baptists insist there is only one God.

Are we to reject Monotheism because we share that basic fundamental along with Catholics and Orthodox Jews?

I'm sorry, but you'll have to defeat the "Sethite" view on it's own merits  regardless of who holds a similar doctrine in order to present a valid argument.  I know personally, that when first studying Genesis in depth, that was the natural conclusion I came to without ever having heard any argument for any particular side.  I had no idea there was even debate about it.  I don't care if Augustine came to similar conclusions.  Maybe he was right.  I would agree with him that 2+2=4 as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

Actually, I don't necessarily hold to the Sethite view, either. It seems to me that MOST had gone bad, even of Seth's line. 

What I believe occured, which can be proven from the book of 2nd Opinions chapter 4, and really, the whole reason things were a mess, is that those that WERE godly, or had at least been trained up right, were, like today, intermarrying with the children of the ungoldy, who had been brought up under false teachings. These raised children together and these children were brought up in a mixture of the religions, of right and wrong, and from hence came up ner religions and leaders that had great power over the people-it wasn't all false doctrine,  but, like Mormonism and JW, a poisonous mixture of good with evil, and this ended up effecting pretty much everyone. THose who grew and developed this religion, might have gained great followings, as we would see today, and these were the mighty men, men of renown.

See, we assume mighty men to be men of great physical prowess, or that they are the same as the giants, but people who lead false religions are very mighty and of great renown-like the pope. Who could say the Pope is not a mighty man and of great renown? Doesn't mean we like him, but many DO, many love him and follow him. 

If we think this is stretching, consider the great power of those religions that mix truth with error-LDS, JW, SDA, and others that have millions of followers. Or even the new evangelicalism, that has become so ecumenical, such that people now on the whole believe that worship=rock music, and a worship leader is the eader of the church 'worship team"/rock band. These are truly mighty men, with many followers, men of renown. Why could it not have been the same? You don't need angels interbreeding with humans to produce mighty men of renown that bring about the downfall of the world to evil-the same thing is happening today, and there are no giants, no angelic or demonic marriages, just people and false teachings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Actually, I don't necessarily hold to the Sethite view, either. It seems to me that MOST had gone bad, even of Seth's line. 

What I believe occured, which can be proven from the book of 2nd Opinions chapter 4, and really, the whole reason things were a mess, is that those that WERE godly, or had at least been trained up right, were, like today, intermarrying with the children of the ungoldy, who had been brought up under false teachings.

​I would agree with this as well.  It's not necessarily "Sethites", it's any "Godly" person, male or female both "marrying" and "giving in marriage".  It would have been just as ungodly for the wicked to seek to intermarry the "righteous" as the "righteous" to give their daughters (or sons) to the wicked.

I personally think that there was also intentional breeding of people of physical prowess and actual GIANTS as well, but that I think was due to intentional inter-breeding and intermarrying for the sole purpose of creating dominant men of war.  I think that the Sons of Anak for instance were likely bred intentionally for that purpose.  The Scriptures do state that the world was "full of violence" at the time and that was likely a sin in the fore-front of God's mind as deserving of judgement. These ideas I also demonstrate clearly from 2 Opinions chapter 13 vs 8-14. 

Edited by Heir of Salvation
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Good theories in the last two posts (Mike and HoS).

Much of what Mike put forth also has the weight of evidence of such occurring later throughout so much of Scripture. The Jews constantly mingled pagan religions with that which was given them from God. This, or course, always led to disaster, but in the meantime many became mighty in this, as well as some who gave themselves nearly wholly to the pagan gods.

It's also possible, as HoS put forth that there was a direct effort to create a class, or breed, of special warriors through what in later centuries would be called eugenics. Mankind has a history of attempting to breed, raise or enhance warriors. Spartans are among the more well-known for this. In more recent history America, Nazi Germany, the Soviets and others have experimented with various ways and means of having above average warriors; whether through breeding, drugs, training, etc.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

As for giants, clearly there were giants, but my theory is that many, if not all, humans may have been giants, at least by our perspective. Consider:  We know many animals had much larger versions back at that time-giant sloths, giant rhinos, giant tarantulas, giant dragonflies, giant newts, etc. Things lived longer, so they grew bigger. Figure that if humans lived 900+ years, we may have grown taller, and aged slower, went through puberty later. People were having their first children sometimes in their 60's- 200's. 

Of course, its also true that many of the features of the so-called Neandertals are things that would come with great age-a thickening of the facial bones, particularly, so this might be the way we aged as we got so much older, we just grew stronger facial features.Of course, the problem is, we just don't know, we have no precedent to say what happens to us if we live 900 years. I don't think we needed special breeding-I think we just always may have been giants back then.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

As for giants, clearly there were giants, but my theory is that many, if not all, humans may have been giants, at least by our perspective. Consider:  We know many animals had much larger versions back at that time-giant sloths, giant rhinos, giant tarantulas, giant dragonflies, giant newts, etc. Things lived longer, so they grew bigger. Figure that if humans lived 900+ years, we may have grown taller, and aged slower, went through puberty later. People were having their first children sometimes in their 60's- 200's. 

Of course, its also true that many of the features of the so-called Neandertals are things that would come with great age-a thickening of the facial bones, particularly, so this might be the way we aged as we got so much older, we just grew stronger facial features.Of course, the problem is, we just don't know, we have no precedent to say what happens to us if we live 900 years. I don't think we needed special breeding-I think we just always may have been giants back then.    

​I actually agree with you on all points Ukelele!!!!! but, I think there's more to that as well.

I'm guessing that you hold to a sort of  "Canopy Theory"....and I do as well.  I do think that all humans were likely larger than the average person today...but, I also think that the Genesis account teaches that there were at that time people even THEY would consider to be "GIANTS".

Here's how that passage reads:

 

 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.
 
The question is this dependent clause:
"and also after that".....
Now, I believe that this is saying this:
"There were Giants then....and also AFTERWARD".... (in other words there were Giants BOTH then and later)....
If , then, we take the accounts of the sons of Anak and the men of AI and other accounts, then, it would be true that there were chronologically, giants at that period and also afterwards....
 
I think that is what is being said.
 
Now, it could be understood to read them as more concurrent, which is what I guess you are doing wherein it says something like:
"There were giants in the earth in those days and commensurate with 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."
I read that dependent clause as a break....
As in, there were giants then, there were giants later.......
See Deuteronomy here:

Deu 3:11

For only Og king of Bashan remained of the remnant of giants; behold, his bedstead was a bedstead of iron; is it not in Rabbath of the children of Ammon? nine cubits was the length thereof, and four cubits the breadth of it, after the cubit of a man.

Jos 12:4

And the coast of Og king of Bashan, which was of the remnant of the giants, that dwelt at Ashtaroth and at Edrei,

Unfortunately, the "sentence" is not a clearly defined concept in Biblical Hebrew....There are no periods, no delineation between dependent and independent clauses....It tends to read like one super-long run-on sentence which just says "and, or, and, and, and, and, or, and......."  I think that We should understand Genesis 6:4 as saying that there were "Giants" then....and also there were "GIANTS" later.

The sons of Anak were "Giants".

Num 13:33

And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, which come of the giants: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight.
 

Now, my guess is there was some intermarriage and in-breeding since the Scriptures mention Giants with polydactyly.....

Which (certain forms) can be a mutation do to interbreeding:

 

2 Sam. 21:20 And there was yet a battle in Gath, where was a man of great stature, that had on every hand six fingers, and on every foot six toes, four and twenty in number; and he also was born to the giant.
 

 

1 CH 20:6 And yet again there was war at Gath, where was a man of great stature, whose fingers and toes were four and twenty, six on each hand, and six on each foot: and he also was the son of the giant.

My guess, is that Genesis 6:4 is implying some tendency of giants "taking wives" with intent to dominate. This piggy-backs to the account of Lamech who, we will recall was a man pre-disposed towards violence, (and was rather a braggart about it) who also took to himself TWO wives.... There are (IMO) too many references to PHYSICAL stature here translated as "Giants" to see it simply as men of "renown" in the sense of influence power etc.....While, I don't disagree with your understanding per-se, I think there is rather more to it than that, and that includes men of PHYSICAL stature and power above that of the common men at that time.

I have enjoyed your feedback!  And no small thanks to BOTH you and John Young for this excellent and thoughtful thread!

You guys are BOTH on point!!!

 

 

 

 

Edited by Heir of Salvation
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Genesis 6:4There 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.

Heir of Salvation.

The problem with "afterward" is that the whole story takes place "in those days": the sons of God, daughters of men, giants, were all "in those days".

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

After

preposition

1.
behind in place or position; following behind:
men lining up one after the other.
2.
later in time than; in succession to; at the close of:
Tell me after supper. Day after day he came to work late.
3.
subsequent to and in consequence of:
After what has happened, I can never return.
4.
below in rank or excellence; nearest to:
Milton is usually placed after Shakespeare among English poets.
5.
in imitation of or in imitation of the style of:
to make something after a model; fashioned after Raphael.
6.
in pursuit or search of; with or in desire for:
I'm after a better job. Run after him!
7.
concerning; about:
to inquire after a person.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

As in: "after his kind"

I don't believe the"sons of God" "came in unto the daughters of men" and bare children "afterward" or  "later in time" because the  whole story is about "in those days" . Instead, the sons of God became powerful forces to be reckoned with "in consequence of" or "in imitation of" the giants they coexisted with.  They were God's people living worldly. Giants were simply big, tall men like the "Watusis" "Hutus", the "Dutch" and basketball players living today. Being of great stature was more of a big deal back then when warfare was mostly hand to hand combat. This is why the Children of Israel feared to go into the land of Canaan.

Edited by heartstrings
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

As in: "after his kind"

I don't believe the"sons of God" "came in unto the daughters of men" and bare children "afterward" or  "later in time" because the  whole story is about "in those days" . Instead, the sons of God became powerful forces to be reckoned with "in consequence of" or "in imitation of" the giants they coexisted with.  They were God's people living worldly. Giants were simply big, tall men like the "Watusis" "Hutus", the "Dutch" and basketball players living today. Being of great stature was more of a big deal back then when warfare was mostly hand to hand combat. This is why the Children of Israel feared to go into the land of Canaan.

​O.K....

I think you are missing my point.

"In those days"...refers, quite naturally to "those days"

You are correct.

 

The phrase: "And ALSO 'AFTER' THAT" can mean possibly commensurate with/ because of/ or (as I prefer) "After" that chronologically. 

Read simply:  There were giants in those days

and also:     after that

There is nothing whatsoever grammatically wrong with that.  It does justice to the Hebrew text and the KJV.  And my view squares with statement from later Scriptures which state that there were the remnants of the Giants.

Remember to let Scripture explain Scripture.

I have shown that there were Nephilim and Anakim at later periods as I quoted in these other Scriptures:

Deut. 3 And the coast of Og king of Bashan, which was of the remnant of the giants,

Josh 12 And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, which come of the giants:

I think the view I suggested makes very good sense of those passages, and blends them with the statement in Genesis 6 quite well.  If that is not the case, than you simply have God choosing an incredibly unwieldy phrase like "and also after that" to simply mean "and they" or " they therefore" or "and thus they"....because that's what I think you are suggesting.

Strongs translate "achar" there to mean this:

after the following part, behind (of place), hinder, afterwards (of time)

  1. as an adverb

    1. behind (of place)

    2. afterwards (of time)

  2. as a preposition

    1. behind, after (of place)

    2. after (of time)

    3. besides

  3. as a conjunction

    1. after that

  4. as a substantive

    1. hinder part

  5. with other prepositions

    1. from behind

    2. from following after

 

I think your view would have us using the word to simply mean something like "therefore".  I don't think that's as faithful to the text.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...