Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

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

The Kingdom


Recommended Posts

  • Members
On ‎2‎/‎14‎/‎2016 at 2:37 AM, beameup said:

"their own habitation" is oikētērionThe angels that sinned "gave up" their glorified bodies in order to "materialize" on the earth and mate with human women.  (ie: the "angels that sinned" permanently became physical beings, in order to contaminate the human DNA through sex)

For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house oikētērion G3613 which is from heaven:  2 Cor 5:2   We shall receive "glorified bodies". :D
 

δέ εἰ τὶς ἀγνοέω ἀγνοέω

First, the use of "oiketerion" in Jude 1:6 cannot be made equivalent with the use of "oiketerion" in 2 Corinthians 5:2, because the phrase "their own habitation" creates a clear division from "our house."  The phrases "their own" and "our" reveal that these things are two completely different categories of "oiketerion," with each being distinct unto the two respective groups of individuals, the angels in one case and human believers in the other case.

Second, the use of "oiketerion" in Jude 1:6 cannot refer to the angel's "giving up" of their glorified bodies, because they were originally created as "spirits." (See Psalm 104:4)  Thus they could not have "given up" that which they did not originally have.

Edited by Pastor Scott Markle
grammar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
15 hours ago, Old-Pilgrim said:

Genesis 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 [from 119; ruddy i.e. a human being] and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men [powerful; by implication, warrior]

'Men' does not = Human or 'of Adam'

Brother "Old-Pilgrim,"

You are correct that the Hebrew word which is translated "mighty men" in Genesis 6:4 is NOT a word that necessarily refers to humans, but is simply a word that indicates MIGHTY individuals.  However, in your above explanation, you completely neglected to consider the concluding phrase of Genesis 6:4 -- "men of renown."  In this phrase the Hebrew word that is translated "men" IS a word that indicates humanness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
16 hours ago, heartstrings said:

Three groups of sinners in the Bookof Jude,: #! The Israelites in the Wildreness, #2  the angels which kept not their first estate, and #3 the Sodomites. And three(3) sins are mentioned: Defile the flesh, despise dominion, speak evil of digities. Match the sin with the sinners: The Israelites spoke evil of dignities (namely Moses), the angels despised dominion (the dominion of God), and it was the Sodomites who" defiled the flesh". ...not the angels.

Brother Wayne,

No disagreement whatsoever.  Simply desire to present some added information.

Involved in Jude 1:5-8 we encounter three different groups of sinners, three different categories of sin, and three different judgments from the Lord, as follows:

1.  The first generation of the children of Israel delivered from Egypt - "believed not," "speak evil of dignities" (Moses authority from the Lord) - "destroyed" through the wilderness wandering. (See Jude 1:5, 8)

2.  "The angels which kept not their first estate" - "left their own habitation," "despise dominion" (the authority of their Creator God) - "reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day." (See Jude 1:6, 8)

3.  "Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them" - "giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh," "defile the flesh" - "suffering the vengeance of eternal fire." (See Jude 1:7, 8)

In the context of the epistle all three of these groups are presented in order to reveal that the ungodly false teachers of Jude's time would certainly be condemned before and judged by the Lord God.  If the Lord God judged (1) His own people, (2) angelic beings, and (3) heathen cities for their rebellion against Him, He certainly would also judge these ungodly ones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
45 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Brother Wayne,

No disagreement whatsoever.  Simply desire to present some added information.

Involved in Jude 1:5-8 we encounter three different groups of sinners, three different categories of sin, and three different judgments from the Lord, as follows:

1.  The first generation of the children of Israel delivered from Egypt - "believed not," "speak evil of dignities" (Moses authority from the Lord) - "destroyed" through the wilderness wandering. (See Jude 1:5, 8)

2.  "The angels which kept not their first estate" - "left their own habitation," "despise dominion" (the authority of their Creator God) - "reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day." (See Jude 1:6, 8)

3.  "Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them" - "giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh," "defile the flesh" - "suffering the vengeance of eternal fire." (See Jude 1:7, 8)

In the context of the epistle all three of these groups are presented in order to reveal that the ungodly false teachers of Jude's time would certainly be condemned before and judged by the Lord God.  If the Lord God judged (1) His own people, (2) angelic beings, and (3) heathen cities for their rebellion against Him, He certainly would also judge these ungodly ones.

Yes. that's it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
5 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Frist, the use of the adverb "also" indicates that the second independent clause reveals an additional reality to the first independent clause.  Indeed, the use of the adverb "also" grammatically reveals that the second independent clause is NOT an explanation or definition of the first independent clause.  Furthermore, the adverbial (prepositional) phrase "after that" indicates that the reality of the second independent clause occurred in time AFTER the reality of the first independent clause.  Brother Scott, that is not correct. The phrase, "in those days", indicates that the existence of giants was contemporary with the actions of the sons of God, namely "when men began to multiply...."  and the term "in those days" is speaking of the entire period before the flood. Indeed, according to the context the results of the two realities existed at the same time, such that the "giants" and the children of "the sons of God" with "the daughters of men" existed on the earth during the same period of time.  However, the realities of the two independent clauses originally occurred in a sequence of time, with the reality that "the sons of God" and "the daughters of men" procreated and had children occurring AFTER the reality that "there were giants in the earth in those days."  Now, since the procreation of "the sons of God" with "the daughters of men" occurred AFTER the existence of the "giants," it is impossible that the "giants" could be the resulting children of that procreation.  By definition the effect does NOT occur before the cause.

Brother Wayne,

Overall, it appears that we hold similar positions concerning Genesis 6:1-4.  However, I cannot agree with your above corrective.  Even so, I must contend that the grammatical construction of Genesis 6:4 (specifically concerning the phrase, "and also after that") is precisely as I have presented it.  Further, I am moved to express my belief that you are not being quite precise enough with your handling of the matter.

Indeed, the opening independent clause of Genesis 6:4 does presents a declarative statement of fact that includes the prepositional phrase, "in those days."  This prepositional phrase includes the demonstrative pronoun "those," using it as an adjective for the noun "days."  Grammatically, this demonstrative pronoun "those" points back to the events and realities that were presented earlier in the context, as per Genesis 6:1-2.  Even so, the reality that "there were giants in the earth in those days" was a contemporary reality with the events and realities that were revealed in Genesis 6:1-2.

What then are the events and realities that were revealed in Genesis 6:1-2.  Therein we find a set of events and realities that are presented in a progression, as follows:

1.  "Men began to multiply on the face of the earth."

2.  "Daughters were born unto" these men who had begun to "multiply on the face of the earth."

3.  "The sons of God saw" these very "daughters of men," noticing "that they were fair."

4.  The sons of God "took them wives of all which they chose" from among these very daughters of men.

Even so, in those very days (that is -- in the very days wherein men were multiplying and begetting daughters and wherein "the sons of God" were marrying these daughters), "there were giants in the earth."  However, it should be noted that the events and realities of Genesis 6:1-2 do NOT make any mention concerning any children that "the sons of God" have with "the daughters of men," or concerning what those children grow up to become.  In fact, this information is presented with the second independent clause of Genesis 6:4 as occurring AFTER the existence of the "giants in the earth in those days" (that is -- contemporary with the events and realities of Genesis 6:1-2).  As such, the progression of the passage would be as follows:

1a.  "Men began to multiply on the face of the earth."

2a.  "Daughters were born unto" these men who had begun to "multiply on the face of the earth."

3a.  "The sons of God saw" these very "daughters of men," noticing "that they were fair."

4a.  The sons of God "took them wives of all which they chose" from among these very daughters of men.

5.  The Lord God's pronouncement of judgment upon mankind, to be enacted after 120 more years.

1-4b.  "There were giants in the earth in those days."

6.  "And also after that, the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men" whom they had taken as wives.

7. The daughters of men "bare children" to the sons of God.

8.  These very "same" children "became mighty men which were of old, men of renown."

Were the "giants" still in the earth during the lifetime of these children?  The context would appear to indicate that it was so.  Yet which came into existence first, the "giants" or the children from "the sons of God" with "the daughters of men"?  The "giants" came first; then "after that" the children from "the sons of God" with "the daughters of men" were born and grew up.

____________________________________________________

By the way, it is interesting that in the progression of the passage, the Lord God pronounced His judgment after "the sons of God" had taken wives from among "the daughters of men," but before there were children born unto them.  This would appear to reveal that it was NOT the children of these marriages that moved the Lord God to judgment, but that it was the marriages themselves that moved the Lord God to judgment.

Indeed, what were the sins of MANKIND which the passage specifies as those which moved the Lord God to judgment?

1.  "And GOD saw that the wickedness of man [not angels, but man] was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually."

2.  "The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence."

3.  "And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh [not angels, but human flesh] had corrupted his way upon the earth."

4.   "For the earth is filled with violence through them."

Edited by Pastor Scott Markle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
6 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:
6 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Brother Chester,

Indeed, a semicolon that is followed by the coordinating conjunction "and" DOES grammatically indicate a coordinating relationship between the two statements of the two independent clauses.

False.  The semicolon and the coordinating conjunction "and" do NOT indicate that the "giants" were associated with "the sons of God" and "the daughters of men."  Rather, the semicolon and the coordinating conjunction "and" grammatically indicate that the two events of the two independent clauses are related to one another.  Yet what is that relationship?  That relationship is revealed by the additional phrase, "also after that."  You see, if you desire to speak concerning the grammatical construction of the passage, you need to speak concerning ALL of the grammatical construction; and ALL of the grammatical construction includes the entire phrase, "and also after that."

Frist, the use of the adverb "also" indicates that the second independent clause reveals an additional reality to the first independent clause.  Indeed, the use of the adverb "also" grammatically reveals that the second independent clause is NOT an explanation or definition of the first independent clause.  Furthermore, the adverbial (prepositional) phrase "after that" indicates that the reality of the second independent clause occurred in time AFTER the reality of the first independent clause.  Indeed, according to the context the results of the two realities existed at the same time, such that the "giants" and the children of "the sons of God" with "the daughters of men" existed on the earth during the same period of time.  However, the realities of the two independent clauses originally occurred in a sequence of time, with the reality that "the sons of God" and "the daughters of men" procreated and had children occurring AFTER the reality that "there were giants in the earth in those days."  Now, since the procreation of "the sons of God" with "the daughters of men" occurred AFTER the existence of the "giants," it is impossible that the "giants" could be the resulting children of that procreation.  By definition the effect does NOT occur before the cause.

Indeed, my viewpoint, based upon the English grammar of the verse, indicates that the procreation of "the sons of God" with "the daughters of men" did NOT produce the "giants," since the "giants" existed in the earth BEFORE the children from "the sons of God" with "the daughters of men" were brought forth.  Indeed, my viewpoint, based upon the English grammar of the verse, indicates that the children of "the sons of God" with "the daughters of men" were simply human males who grew up to become "mighty men which were of old, men of renown," NOT the "giants."

Really???  Where in the Biblical account of Genesis 19:1-12 does God's Word indicate that "the men of Sodom . . . knew that the men who visited Lot were angels"?  (By the way, the men of Gomorrah never encountered the two angels, since Lot lived in Sodom, and since the angels visited Lot in Sodom.) 

False.  The adjective "strange" means "foreign, uncommon, unnatural."  The "strange [unnatural] flesh" after which "Sodom and Gomorrha" and "the cities" around them "in like manner" with Sodom and Gomorrha were "going after" is explained in Romans 1:27 -- "And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."

Brother Chester,

Indeed, a semicolon that is followed by the coordinating conjunction "and" DOES grammatically indicate a coordinating relationship between the two statements of the two independent clauses.

False.  The semicolon and the coordinating conjunction "and" do NOT indicate that the "giants" were associated with "the sons of God" and "the daughters of men."  Rather, the semicolon and the coordinating conjunction "and" grammatically indicate that the two events of the two independent clauses are related to one another.  Yet what is that relationship?  That relationship is revealed by the additional phrase, "also after that."  You see, if you desire to speak concerning the grammatical construction of the passage, you need to speak concerning ALL of the grammatical construction; and ALL of the grammatical construction includes the entire phrase, "and also after that."

Frist, the use of the adverb "also" indicates that the second independent clause reveals an additional reality to the first independent clause.  Indeed, the use of the adverb "also" grammatically reveals that the second independent clause is NOT an explanation or definition of the first independent clause.  Furthermore, the adverbial (prepositional) phrase "after that" indicates that the reality of the second independent clause occurred in time AFTER the reality of the first independent clause.  Indeed, according to the context the results of the two realities existed at the same time, such that the "giants" and the children of "the sons of God" with "the daughters of men" existed on the earth during the same period of time.  However, the realities of the two independent clauses originally occurred in a sequence of time, with the reality that "the sons of God" and "the daughters of men" procreated and had children occurring AFTER the reality that "there were giants in the earth in those days."  Now, since the procreation of "the sons of God" with "the daughters of men" occurred AFTER the existence of the "giants," it is impossible that the "giants" could be the resulting children of that procreation.  By definition the effect does NOT occur before the cause.

Indeed, my viewpoint, based upon the English grammar of the verse, indicates that the procreation of "the sons of God" with "the daughters of men" did NOT produce the "giants," since the "giants" existed in the earth BEFORE the children from "the sons of God" with "the daughters of men" were brought forth.  Indeed, my viewpoint, based upon the English grammar of the verse, indicates that the children of "the sons of God" with "the daughters of men" were simply human males who grew up to become "mighty men which were of old, men of renown," NOT the "giants."

Really???  Where in the Biblical account of Genesis 19:1-12 does God's Word indicate that "the men of Sodom . . . knew that the men who visited Lot were angels"?  (By the way, the men of Gomorrah never encountered the two angels, since Lot lived in Sodom, and since the angels visited Lot in Sodom.) 

False.  The adjective "strange" means "foreign, uncommon, unnatural."  The "strange [unnatural] flesh" after which "Sodom and Gomorrha" and "the cities" around them "in like manner" with Sodom and Gomorrha were "going after" is explained in Romans 1:27 -- "And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."

Pastor Scott  you said >>>''False.  The adjective "strange" means "foreign, uncommon, unnatural."  The "strange [unnatural] flesh" after which "Sodom and Gomorrha" and "the cities" around them "in like manner" with Sodom and Gomorrha were "going after" is explained in Romans 1:27 -- "And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.''<<<
Scott, as far as I can see, "in like manner" could be refering to "the cities" around them, or equaly it could be refering to ''the angels which kept not their first estate'', or ''he hath reserved in everlasting chains'', However well the rules of grammer might be understood, every word, phrase and sentence almost always if not absolutely always have more than one way in which they can be honestly and rightly understood, or ambiguity, but you use your intracate knowledge of grammer to present it as if there was certainty and only one possible way to read a sentence, which to me looks like a subtle abuse of your knowledge of language.

or am I wrong about the ambiguity?

Edited by Old-Pilgrim
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
16 hours ago, John81 said:

The plain English reading is clear.

Hello John, so if it is clear, what does it mean ?Jude 1:6 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.

Where what and why did they leave, and where are they now?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
27 minutes ago, Old-Pilgrim said:

However well the rules of grammer might be understood, every word, phrase and sentence almost always if not absolutely always have more than one way in which they can be honestly and rightly understood, or ambiguity, but you use your intracate knowledge of grammer to present it as if there was certainty and only one possible way to read a sentence, which to me looks like a subtle abuse of your knowledge of language.

Brother "Old-Pilgrim,"

First, God the Holy Spirit inspired the written Scriptures with precise grammatical constructions; therefore, it is our responsibility as Bible students to "rightly divide" any given passage of Scripture with precision, not ambiguity.

Second, precision of grammatical understanding in Bible study is NOT an abuse of knowledge, but is a pursuit of accuracy, in direct obedience unto the responsibility to "rightly divide the word of truth" (that is -- to cut a precise line of understanding in accord with the pattern of God the Holy Spirit's precise communication through inspiration).
 

1 hour ago, Old-Pilgrim said:

Scott, as far as I can see, "in like manner" could be refering to "the cities" around them, or equaly it could be refering to ''the angels which kept not their first estate'', or ''he hath reserved in everlasting chains'',

Or am I wrong about the ambiguity?

I would contend that there is NO ambiguity at all.  If the "in like manner" phrase were at or near the beginning of the sentence, then that phrase would connect the sentence to that which came before it (that is -- it would connect the statement of verse 7 to the statement of verse 6).  However, within the sentence of verse 7, the "in like manner" phrase is grammatically connected directly to the phrase, "and the cities about them."  Therefore, the "in like manner" phrase grammatically connects the phrase, "and the cities about them," to the phrase, "Sodom and Gomorrha."  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Back to the OP - The Kingdom

But as truly as I live, all the earth shall be filled with the glory of the LORD.  Numbers 14:21

Be thou exalted, O God, above the heavens; let thy glory be above all the earth.  Psalm 57:5
Be thou exalted, O God, above the heavens: let thy glory be above all the earth. Psalm 57:11
And blessed be his glorious name for ever: and let the whole earth be filled with his glory; Amen, and Amen. Psalm 72:19
So the heathen [Gentiles] shall fear the name of the LORD, and all the kings of the earth thy glory. Psalm 102:15
And one cried unto another, and said, Holy, holy, holy, is the LORD of hosts: the whole earth is full of his glory.  Isaiah 6:3
And, behold, the glory of the God of Israel came from the way of the east: and his voice was like a noise of many waters:
and the earth shined with his glory. [prophetical vision] Ezek 43:2
For the earth shall be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea. Hab 2:14
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Rev 1:7 Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.

Even the dead people in Heaven and Hell will see Jesus returning to set up his kingdom. Even the devils in chains will see Jesus return.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

There appears to be at least one person on this forum that is an amillennialist/supersessionist, who does not believe that there will be a literal Kingdom, on the earth, in Israel, ruled by Jesus Messiah and his kinsmen the Jews.

There also may be some who cannot differentiate clearly between the "kingdom of heaven", the "kingdom of God", and the "kingdom" on the earth (ie: Millennial Kingdom), and who will "populate" (for lack of a better word) those "kingdoms".

He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end. Luke 1:32-33
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
3 hours ago, beameup said:

There appears to be at least one person on this forum that is an amillennialist/supersessionist, who does not believe that there will be a literal Kingdom, on the earth, in Israel, ruled by Jesus Messiah and his kinsmen the Jews.

There also may be some who cannot differentiate clearly between the "kingdom of heaven", the "kingdom of God", and the "kingdom" on the earth (ie: Millennial Kingdom), and who will "populate" (for lack of a better word) those "kingdoms".

 

OK, Tell us the difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
On ‎2‎/‎15‎/‎2016 at 3:14 PM, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Brother Wayne,

Overall, it appears that we hold similar positions concerning Genesis 6:1-4.  However, I cannot agree with your above corrective.  Even so, I must contend that the grammatical construction of Genesis 6:4 (specifically concerning the phrase, "and also after that") is precisely as I have presented it.  Further, I am moved to express my belief that you are not being quite precise enough with your handling of the matter.

Indeed, the opening independent clause of Genesis 6:4 does presents a declarative statement of fact that includes the prepositional phrase, "in those days."  This prepositional phrase includes the demonstrative pronoun "those," using it as an adjective for the noun "days."  Grammatically, this demonstrative pronoun "those" points back to the events and realities that were presented earlier in the context, as per Genesis 6:1-2.  Even so, the reality that "there were giants in the earth in those days" was a contemporary reality with the events and realities that were revealed in Genesis 6:1-2.

What then are the events and realities that were revealed in Genesis 6:1-2.  Therein we find a set of events and realities that are presented in a progression, as follows:

1.  "Men began to multiply on the face of the earth."

2.  "Daughters were born unto" these men who had begun to "multiply on the face of the earth."

3.  "The sons of God saw" these very "daughters of men," noticing "that they were fair."

4.  The sons of God "took them wives of all which they chose" from among these very daughters of men.

Even so, in those very days (that is -- in the very days wherein men were multiplying and begetting daughters and wherein "the sons of God" were marrying these daughters), "there were giants in the earth."  However, it should be noted that the events and realities of Genesis 6:1-2 do NOT make any mention concerning any children that "the sons of God" have with "the daughters of men," or concerning what those children grow up to become.  In fact, this information is presented with the second independent clause of Genesis 6:4 as occurring AFTER the existence of the "giants in the earth in those days" (that is -- contemporary with the events and realities of Genesis 6:1-2).  As such, the progression of the passage would be as follows:

1a.  "Men began to multiply on the face of the earth."

2a.  "Daughters were born unto" these men who had begun to "multiply on the face of the earth."

3a.  "The sons of God saw" these very "daughters of men," noticing "that they were fair."

4a.  The sons of God "took them wives of all which they chose" from among these very daughters of men.

5.  The Lord God's pronouncement of judgment upon mankind, to be enacted after 120 more years.

1-4b.  "There were giants in the earth in those days."

6.  "And also after that, the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men" whom they had taken as wives.

7. The daughters of men "bare children" to the sons of God.

8.  These very "same" children "became mighty men which were of old, men of renown."

Were the "giants" still in the earth during the lifetime of these children?  The context would appear to indicate that it was so.  Yet which came into existence first, the "giants" or the children from "the sons of God" with "the daughters of men"?  The "giants" came first; then "after that" the children from "the sons of God" with "the daughters of men" were born and grew up.

____________________________________________________

By the way, it is interesting that in the progression of the passage, the Lord God pronounced His judgment after "the sons of God" had taken wives from among "the daughters of men," but before there were children born unto them.  This would appear to reveal that it was NOT the children of these marriages that moved the Lord God to judgment, but that it was the marriages themselves that moved the Lord God to judgment.

Indeed, what were the sins of MANKIND which the passage specifies as those which moved the Lord God to judgment?

1.  "And GOD saw that the wickedness of man [not angels, but man] was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually."

2.  "The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence."

3.  "And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh [not angels, but human flesh] had corrupted his way upon the earth."

4.   "For the earth is filled with violence through them."

Brother Scott,

I have looked into the feasibility of diagramming this sentence, but don't see how that would help; maybe it would. There seems to be no controversy, between us, on the rest of Genesis 6 except verse 4 and I don't have a lot of time right now for an in-depth analysis of every word or the grammar. But I would like to point out one thing for the time being. is this about what you are saying happened?

 

 

sons of  god bare children3.jpg

Edited by heartstrings
graphic too large
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

In the "after that" period, did the giants still exist? Or had they died off by that time? If they still existed in the "after that" days, then "after that" cannot mean "at a later time". Know what I'm saying?

''after his kind'' Genesis 1:11
''after our likeness'' Genesis 1:26
''after the name of his son'' Genesis 4:17
''after the manner of daughters''  Exodus 21:9
''after the pattern of the tabernacle''  Exodus 25:9
''after the fashion of almonds'' Exodus 31:19
''neither seek after wizards'' leviticus 19:31
''Ye shall not go after other gods'', Deu 6:14

The word "after", in all the above verses, does NOT mean "at a later time period". There are hundreds of verses like this in the KJB and I'm still saying that Genesis 6:4 is likewise. The "giants" are a picture of military might, the same as in the Book of Numbers. Then the last part of Genesis 6:4 tells us what the "children" did; they became "mighty men" and a force to be reckoned with AFTER "the likeness", "after the manner", "after the pattern", "after the fashion" "after" the giants. that's what the whole verse 6:4 is getting at: military prowess.. Put more simply, Genesis 6:4 is saying "these guys were scary and powerful, and these guys did the same thing, became mighty men". The word "after". here,  simply means they "imitated" or "copied" them or "pursued" that lifestyle., if you will.

 

Quote

After

Preposition

5. in imitation of or in imitation of the style of:

to make something after a model; fashioned after Raphael.
 
 
Edited by heartstrings
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Brother Wayne,

5 hours ago, heartstrings said:

In the "after that" period, did the giants still exist?

Yes, the context appears to indicate that this was so.

5 hours ago, heartstrings said:

Or had they died off by that time?

No, the context does not appear to indicate this.

5 hours ago, heartstrings said:

If they still existed in the "after that" days, then "after that" cannot mean "at a later time". Know what I'm saying?

No.  The grammar of the passage would present the following:

In Those Days --

1.  "Men began to multiply on the face of the earth."

2.  "Daughters were born unto" these men who had begun to "multiply on the face of the earth."

3.  "The sons of God saw" these very "daughters of men," noticing "that they were fair."

4.  The sons of God "took them wives of all which they chose" from among these very daughters of men.

5.  The Lord God's pronouncement of judgment upon mankind, to be enacted after 120 more years.

6.  "There were giants in the earth."

Also After That --

1.  "The sons of God came in unto the daughters of men" whom they had taken as wives.

2. The daughters of men "bare children" to the sons of God.

3.  These very "same" children "became mighty men which were of old, men of renown."

4.  The "giants," who were already in existence, were still in existence, such that these children from "the sons of God" with "the daughters of men" would have to deal with them.

Grammatically, the point of Genesis 6:4 is that the "giants" come into existence first, and then "after that" the children from "the sons of God" with "the daughters of men" were born and grew up to become "mighty men."  There is nothing either grammatically or contextually that would forbid the "giants" from being in existence in the "in those days" phase and from still being in existence in the "also after that" phase; just as there is nothing either grammatically or contextually that would forbid the parents of "the daughters of men," who would then be the grandparents of their children, from existing in the "in those days" phase before their grandchildren were born and from still existing in the "also after that" phase after their grandchildren were born.
 

5 hours ago, heartstrings said:

In the "after that" period, did the giants still exist? Or had they died off by that time? If they still existed in the "after that" days, then "after that" cannot mean "at a later time". Know what I'm saying?

''after his kind'' Genesis 1:11
''after our likeness'' Genesis 1:26
''after the name of his son'' Genesis 4:17
''after the manner of daughters''  Exodus 21:9
''after the pattern of the tabernacle''  Exodus 25:9
''after the fashion of almonds'' Exodus 31:19
''neither seek after wizards'' leviticus 19:31
''Ye shall not go after other gods'', Deu 6:14

The word "after", in all the above verses, does NOT mean "at a later time period". There are hundreds of verses like this in the KJB and I'm still saying that Genesis 6:4 is likewise. The "giants" are a picture of military might, the same as in the Book of Numbers. Then the last part of Genesis 6:4 tells us what the "children" did; they became "mighty men" and a force to be reckoned with AFTER "the likeness", "after the manner", "after the pattern", "after the fashion" "after" the giants. that's what the whole verse 6:4 is getting at: military prowess.. Put more simply, Genesis 6:4 is saying "these guys were scary and powerful, and these guys did the same thing, became mighty men". The word "after". here,  simply means they "imitated" or "copied" them or "pursued" that lifestyle., if you will.

 

After

Preposition

5. in imitation of or in imitation of the style of:

to make something after a model; fashioned after Raphael.

Certainly, the preposition "after" can be used to mean "after the likeness of."  However, it can also be used, and very commonly is used, to mean "after the time of."  So then, how does an individual discern which is the correct meaning for Genesis 6:4?  In my case, I would consider the meaning of the Holy Spirit inspired and preserved Hebrew word that was translated with the English word "after" in the verse.  This Hebrew word is "achar;" and it carries the meaning of "behind in location, after in following (as in -- following after), and after in time."  This Hebrew word does not carry the meaning of "after in likeness."  Even so, this evidence is enough for me to make my decision as to the meaning of the phrase, "also after that," in Genesis 6:4.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. 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...