Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

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

The Kingdom


Recommended Posts

  • Members
13 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Brother Wayne,

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

No, the context does not appear to indicate this.

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.
 

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.

I don't have time until this evening but will list you a couple of verses with the word "achar", which are not speaking of "later in time", but instead carry the same meaning as am trying to convey to you. Also, I believe in my last post I gave you the definition, "imitation" and in another place I said "pursuing a lifestyle" not "likeness". Correct me if I'm wrong.

Exodus 23:2

Exodus 34:16

Deuteronomy 6:14

 

Edited by heartstrings
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Brother Wayne,

3 hours ago, heartstrings said:

Also, I believe in my last post I gave you the definition, "imitation" and in another place I said "pursuing a lifestyle" not "likeness". Correct me if I'm wrong.

I am sorry.  My brain set its focus upon the following:

22 hours ago, heartstrings said:

''after our likeness'' Genesis 1:26 (emboldening added by Pastor Scott Markle)
 

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..  (emboldening added by Pastor Scott Markle)

However, I should have set my focus more closely upon your conclusion, as follows:

22 hours ago, heartstrings said:

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.  (emboldening added by Pastor Scott Markle)

____________________________________________

3 hours ago, heartstrings said:

I don't have time until this evening but will list you a couple of verses with the word "achar", which are not speaking of "later in time", but instead carry the same meaning as am trying to convey to you.

Exodus 23:2

Exodus 34:16

Deuteronomy 6:14

Brother, there is no need for you to do the extensive work necessary (since the Hebrew word "achar" is used a very large number of times in the Old Testament) in order to make your point.  I myself have now done enough research to acknowledge that the "after in following (as in -- following after)" meaning for the Hebrew word "achar" can indeed carry the meaning of "following after in imitation."  (Note: I do thank you for pushing me to put forth more depth in my study on this matter.)

However, I would present two further points of argument:

1.  Even if we choose the "following in imitation" meaning for Genesis 6:4, the "afterward in time" meaning is built into this "following in imitation" meaning.  By definition, someone cannot engage in imitation if the person or thing being imitated is not first already in existence.  So then, we would have the following -- First, the "giants" were "in the earth in those days."  Then second, afterward in imitation of those "giants," the children of "the sons of God" with "the daughters of men" grew up to become "mighty men."

2.  Yet I myself am not prepared to concede the argument that the phrase "after that" in Genesis 6:4 does not strictly carry the meaning of "afterward in time."  In the Hebrew the exact construction for this prepositional phrase is the following -- "achari-ken."  I myself was able to find only four other times wherein this Hebrew construction is found in the Old Testament, as follows:

Genesis 15:14 -- "And also that nation, whom they shall serve, will I judge: and afterward shall they come out with great substance."

Genesis 23:19 -- "And after this, Abraham buried Sarah his wife in the cave of the field of Machpelah before Mamre: the same is Hebron in the land of Canaan."

Genesis 41:31 -- "And the plenty shall not be known in the land by reason of that famine following; for it shall be very grievous."

1 Samuel 9:13 -- "As soon as ye be come into the city, ye shall straightway find him, before he go up to the high place to eat: for the people will not eat until he come, because he doth bless the sacrifice; and afterwards they eat that be bidden.  Now therefore get you up; for about this time ye shall find him."

In all four of these verses, it appears to me that the Hebrew construction does indeed carry the meaning of "afterward in time."  Therefore, I am choosing to remain with that position for Genesis 6:4 also.

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

  • Members
On 2/17/2016 at 4:02 AM, 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".

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

Yes, they are not the same. What cause the confusion is that both share some of the same characteristics.

But, the kingdom of God cannot be taken with violence (Matthew 11:12).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
10 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Brother Wayne,

I am sorry.  My brain set its focus upon the following:

However, I should have set my focus more closely upon your conclusion, as follows:

____________________________________________

Brother, there is no need for you to do the extensive work necessary (since the Hebrew word "achar" is used a very large number of times in the Old Testament) in order to make your point.  I myself have now done enough research to acknowledge that the "after in following (as in -- following after)" meaning for the Hebrew word "achar" can indeed carry the meaning of "following after in imitation."  (Note: I do thank you for pushing me to put forth more depth in my study on this matter.)

However, I would present two further points of argument:

1.  Even if we choose the "following in imitation" meaning for Genesis 6:4, the "afterward in time" meaning is built into this "following in imitation" meaning.  By definition, someone cannot engage in imitation if the person or thing being imitated is not first already in existence.  So then, we would have the following -- First, the "giants" were "in the earth in those days."  Then second, afterward in imitation of those "giants," the children of "the sons of God" with "the daughters of men" grew up to become "mighty men."

2.  Yet I myself am not prepared to concede the argument that the phrase "after that" in Genesis 6:4 does not strictly carry the meaning of "afterward in time."  In the Hebrew the exact construction for this prepositional phrase is the following -- "achari-ken."  I myself was able to find only four other times wherein this Hebrew construction is found in the Old Testament, as follows:

Genesis 15:14 -- "And also that nation, whom they shall serve, will I judge: and afterward shall they come out with great substance."

Genesis 23:19 -- "And after this, Abraham buried Sarah his wife in the cave of the field of Machpelah before Mamre: the same is Hebron in the land of Canaan."

Genesis 41:31 -- "And the plenty shall not be known in the land by reason of that famine following; for it shall be very grievous."

1 Samuel 9:13 -- "As soon as ye be come into the city, ye shall straightway find him, before he go up to the high place to eat: for the people will not eat until he come, because he doth bless the sacrifice; and afterwards they eat that be bidden.  Now therefore get you up; for about this time ye shall find him."

In all four of these verses, it appears to me that the Hebrew construction does indeed carry the meaning of "afterward in time."  Therefore, I am choosing to remain with that position for Genesis 6:4 also.

Yes, absolutely, many verses mean "afterward in time" that is the truth.

Brother Scott.

I said to correct me if I'm wrong so that's no problem. I guess, I haven't completely nailed down in my own mind, whether the "following after" means ''after the likeness'' or ''in imitation'' but, technically, it means close to the same thing. However, considering the military connotations in this context of "giants and mighty men', the alternate meanings of the word "after", and the fact that the giants were contemporaries with the "sons god and daughters of men bearing children", I still contend  that it means that the sons of God were following some type of lifestyle involving military might, as either a defensive a reaction to, or a worldly imitation of the presence of giants. It cannot simply mean at a later time because the entire narrative is about "those days". Furthermore, if this is definitively proven to be the case, it drives a final nail in the coffin of the " angels cohabited with women" belief because it further proves  that "sons of God" were just human beings and that they did not gender the giants.

Edited by heartstrings
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
On Monday, February 15, 2016 at 10:57 PM, Pastor Scott Markle said:

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).
 

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."  

Hello Scott, sorry if I was questioning you integrity, I had no grounds to do that, but how do you know your teachers taught you right? And on the Ambiguity, I know God the Holy Spirit has inspired the original text and also was involved in the creation of the languages, but I believe that the 'dual meaning' or seeming 'dual meaning' which is woven through out words and language is there by design, that each word has got two edges and so we need the Holy Spirit as teacher in order to understand the correct meaning in context of the words. I will attempt a cut and paste here an article which is on the topic of ambiguity and translation. Which shows a passage of scripture which has similar structure and ambiguity. (It is an interesting article worth the time)

THE GENIUS OF AMBIGUITY--The Translational and Exegetical Rendering of Psalm 12:7 Primarily Considered in the Churchly Tradition of the 16th And 17th Centuries and Its Expression in the Reformation English Bibles, By Peter Van Kleeck

"The appropriate interpretation of Psalm 12:7 is not without question in the churchly tradition. Problems arise from the textual base chosen for the translation, Greek-Latin or Hebrew ... Contemporary Bible versions and the reciprocating confirmation of each other's validity give the dogmatic impression that as a result of new and better methodologies, the modern rendering is best and that past problems have been resolved. A casual perusal of the popular literature on the subject of Bible texts and versions will show, however, that the Reformational Churches' expression of their common faith in Scripture's providential preservation of the texts in their possession is evaluated in an unsympathetic and pejorative manner. Scholars such as Bruce M. Metzger and Kurt Aland discredit the value of the Reformation Greek texts and subsequently the English Bibles on textual grounds. Metzger, giving a standard reply, writes,

"Partly because of this catchword [Textus Receptus] the form of the Greek text incorporated in the editions that Stephanus, Beza, and the Elzevirs had published succeeded in establishing itself as 'the only true text' of the New Testament, and was slavishly reprinted in hundreds of subsequent editions. It lies at the basis of the King James Version and of all the principal Protestant translations in the languages of Europe prior to 1881. So superstitious has been the reverence accorded the Textus Receptus that in some cases attempts to criticize or emend it have been regarded as akin to sacrilege" (Metzger, The Text of the New Testament, Oxford University Press, 1968, p. 106).

"What these writers fail to say is that the Authorized Version is not an ad hoc English translation, but stands at the end of the 16th century English Bible tradition. ... To deny the Authorized Version on textual grounds is to do the same for the Bishops, Geneva, Great, Coverdale, Matthews and Tyndale Bibles going back to 1524. It also questions the scholarship of the Protestant exiles of Mary's romanish persecution who had escaped to the safe haven of Geneva as well as the value of every 16th and 17th century commentator who based his work on Erasmus' Greek New Testament.

"The bifurcation of the Reformation Bible tradition and the post-19th century English Bibles is seen in the New Revised Standard Version render[ing of] Psalm 12:7, "You O Lord, will protect us; you will guard us from this generation forever." In a similar manner, the New International Version translates verse 7, "O Lord, you will keep us safe and protect us from such people forever." In spite of Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia reading "keep them" and "preserve him," both the NRSV and NIV have elected not to translate the Hebrew and have, in its place, substituted a translation from the Greek and Latin rendering of these two pronouns. By so doing, the editors of these translations have endorsed one exegetical tradition, the Greek- Latin, to the exclusion of the other, the Hebraic, and by doing so have censured any further debate within the Hebrew exegetical tradition itself. ...

"This essay will show the diversity of the textual and exegetical tradition of Psalm 12:6-7 ... By so doing, the inadequacy of modern renditions of Psalm 12:7 will be exposed...

"Michael Ayguan (1340-1416) ... On Psalm 12:7 Ayguan comments, Keep them: that is, not as the passage is generally taken, Keep or guard Thy people, but Thou shalt keep, or make good, Thy words: and by doing so, shalt preserve him--him, the needy, him, the poor--from this generation...

"Martin Luther's German Bible ... Following the arrangement of this Psalm, Luther penned a hymn, two stanzas of which reflect his understanding of verse 6 and 7: ... "Thy truth thou wilt preserve, O Lord, from this vile generation..." In poetic form, Luther grasps the significance of this verse both for the preservation of those who are oppressed and for the Word of God. The two-pronged significance of this interpretation to both people and God's words in Luther's Psalter was to have wide-ranging significance in the English Bible tradition.

"Calvin's Commentary on the Psalms ... in the body of the commentary he writes, 'Some give this exposition of the passage, Thou wilt keep them, namely, thy words; but this does not seem to me to be suitable." [Thus while Calvin did not believe Psalm 12:7 referred to the Word of God, he admits that others did hold this view in his day.]

"Coverdale Bible, 1535 ... reads for [verse 7] of Psalm 12: "Keep them therefore (O Lord) and preserve us from this generation for ever." With the absence of "Thou shalt" to begin verse 7, there is a direct connection between 'words' and 'keep them.' In the first clause, Coverdale intended the words to be kept; in the second clause people are in view..."

"The Matthew Bible 1537. ... In Psalm 12:67 Rogers translated, "The words of the Lord are pure words as the silver, which from the earth is tried and purified vii times in the fire. Keep them therefore (O Lord) and preserve us from this generation for ever." Following Coverdale, Rogers makes a clear connection in his translation between the words being the antecedent to "them." ... The significance of Roger's marginal note is that two of the greatest Hebrew scholars referred to by the Reformation writers differed on the interpretation of "them" in Psalms 12:7. [Thus we see that the interpretation of this verse was also divided among Jewish scholars.]

"The Third Part of the Bible, 1550. Taken from Becke's text of 1549 this edition of the scriptures contains the Psalter, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs. ... In verse 7 there is a note at them which states, 'some understand here certain men, some others word." Again, the translators and exegetes allowed breadth of interpretation of "them" to include people and words.

"The Geneva Bible, 1560. ... The preface reads, "Then comforting himself and others with the assurance of God's help, he commendeth the constant vigil that God observeth in keeping his promises." The text reads, "The words of the Lord are pure words, as the silver, tried in a furnace of earth, fined seven fold. Thou wilt keep them, O Lord: Thou wilt preserve him from this generation forever." [The margin reads, "Because the Lords word and promise is true and unchangeable, he will perform it and preserve the poor from this wicked generation." Thus the Geneva took a position that verse 7 applies both to the preservation of the Bible and of God's people.]
"Annotations by Henry Ainsworth, 1626. Briggs commends Ainsworth as the "prince of Puritan commentators" and that his commentary on the Psalms is a "monument of learning." ... Ainsworth states that "the sayings" [of Psalm 12:7] are "words" or "promises" that are "tried" or "examined" "as in a fire." He cross references the reader to Psalm 18:31; 119:140; and Proverbs 30:5, each reference having to do with the purity of the word.

"Matthew Poole's 1685 Commentary of the Psalms ... writes at verse seven, "Thou shalt keep them; either, 1. The poor and needy, ver. 5 ... Or, 2. Thy words or promises last mentioned, ver. 6. ...

"In summary ... [t]he only sure conclusion is that there is no consensus within the English Bible tradition for the interpretation of "them" in Psalm 12:7 and it was precisely this lack of agreement within the tradition which was the genius of the ambiguity of the King James Version's rendering. ... by choosing a Greek-Latin basis the modern versions elect to overlook the Reformation's Hebrew basis for translation in Psalm 12:6-7; and the churchly tradition in the new versions is censored by not including a translation that is broad enough to include both interpretations--oppressed people and God's words" (Peter Van Kleeck, The Translational and Exegetical Rendering of Psalm 12:7 Primarily Considered in the Churchly Tradition of the 16th and 17th Centuries and Its Expression in the Reformation English Bibles: The Genius of Ambiguity, March 1993).

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Back to the OP
[[A Psalm of David.]] The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool. The LORD shall send the rod of thy strength out of Zion: rule thou in the midst of thine enemies [Gentiles]. Thy people [Israelis] shall be willing in the day of thy power, in the beauties of holiness from the womb of the morning: thou hast the dew of thy youth. The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek. The Lord at thy right hand shall strike through kings in the day of his wrath. He shall judge among the heathen, he shall fill the places with the dead bodies; he shall wound the heads over many countries. He shall drink of the brook in the way: therefore shall he lift up the head. Psalm 110
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Brother Wayne,

On ‎2‎/‎21‎/‎2016 at 9:53 PM, heartstrings said:

However, considering the military connotations in this context of "giants and mighty men', the alternate meanings of the word "after", and the fact that the giants were contemporaries with the "sons god and daughters of men bearing children", I still contend  that it means that the sons of God were following some type of lifestyle involving military might, as either a defensive a reaction to, or a worldly imitation of the presence of giants.

A small reminder -- Remember that the context does not directly indicate that "the sons of God" became "mighty men which were of old, men of renown," but that their children did.

On ‎2‎/‎21‎/‎2016 at 9:53 PM, heartstrings said:

It cannot simply mean at a later time because the entire narrative is about "those days".

Herein we would have a grammatical and contextual disagreement.  I would contend that grammatically and contextually the phrase "in those days" refers to that which precedes it in the context, not to that which follows it.  Furthermore, although I would agree that the "giants" were still in existence during the "also after that" phase, I would contend that the "also after that" phase does grammatically and contextually move us forward from the "in those days" phase of that time period before the flood.  However, we overall would be in firm agreement that the passage does NOT teach anything about fallen angel procreating with human women!!!

On ‎2‎/‎21‎/‎2016 at 9:53 PM, heartstrings said:

Furthermore, if this is definitively proven to be the case, it drives a final nail in the coffin of the " angels cohabited with women" belief because it further proves  that "sons of God" were just human beings and that they did not gender the giants.

Actually, my position on the passage would also drive "a final nail in the coffin" of the position that "the sons of God" gendered the "giants," since it places the gendering of children by "the sons of God" after the existence of the "giants."  Thus it would be impossible for the "giants" themselves to be those children.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
43 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Brother Wayne,

A small reminder -- Remember that the context does not directly indicate that "the sons of God" became "mighty men which were of old, men of renown," but that their children did.

Herein we would have a grammatical and contextual disagreement.  I would contend that grammatically and contextually the phrase "in those days" refers to that which precedes it in the context, not to that which follows it.  Furthermore, although I would agree that the "giants" were still in existence during the "also after that" phase, I would contend that the "also after that" phase does grammatically and contextually move us forward from the "in those days" phase of that time period before the flood.  However, we overall would be in firm agreement that the passage does NOT teach anything about fallen angel procreating with human women!!!

Actually, my position on the passage would also drive "a final nail in the coffin" of the position that "the sons of God" gendered the "giants," since it places the gendering of children by "the sons of God" after the existence of the "giants."  Thus it would be impossible for the "giants" themselves to be those children.

Anything but believe the simple English, right pastor?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
5 minutes ago, Critical Mass said:

Anything but believe the simple English, right pastor?

Actually, my position IS based upon the simple grammar of the English.  "Also AFTER that" means AFTER.  Pretty simple English, huh?

First, "there were giants in the earth in those days."  Then "also AFTER that," "the sons of God" with "the daughters of men" had children who grew up to be "mighty MEN which were of old, MEN of renown."  The simple grammar of the English is clear.  The "giants" could NOT be the children from "the sons of God" with "the daughters of men" because those "giants" existed "in the earth" BEFORE "the sons of God" had their children with "the daughters of men."  Furthermore, the simple English says that the children from "the sons of God" with "the daughters of men" were "mighty MEN," not "giants," and "MEN of renown," not "giants."

ALL pretty simple English here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

"Men" means "Men" and that's all that "Men" means. There is no justification in the text to assert that "men" means giants.

You can only get that kind of false teaching from reading after the works of "men", not the actual Bible text in question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
1 hour ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Brother Wayne,

A small reminder -- Remember that the context does not directly indicate that "the sons of God" became "mighty men which were of old, men of renown," but that their children did. Without properly diagramming the sentence, and/or being a grammar scholar, I'm not sure about that, Brother Scott.  At this point I suspect that both the "sons of God" AND the "children" became "mighty men". Notice it does not say when "sons" were born they became mighty men: it says when the "children" were born unto them. I think the whole families became mighty nations. Surely by the time Methuselah, for instance, became "969" years old and had "begat sons and daughters", who in turn "begat sons and daughters"....for HUNDREDS of years ........DURING Methuselah's lifetime he would have seen his family grow exponentially into a huge nation; a "superpower" if you will, a force to be reckoned with, "after" the similitude, or "following the pattern" or "in imitation of" or "pursuing" that same lifestyle of war and "mightiness" or as a defensive reaction to the presence of giants and violence.

Herein we would have a grammatical and contextual disagreement.  I would contend that grammatically and contextually the phrase "in those days" I still think the refers to that which precedes it in the context, not to that which follows it.  Furthermore, although I would agree that the "giants" were still in existence during the "also after that" phase, I would contend that the "also after that" phase does grammatically and contextually move us forward from the "in those days" phase of that time period before the flood.  Ok, sounds feasible, But I still think the "sons of God" (except Noah and Enoch) and their families were living the lifestyle I described above. However, we overall would be in firm agreement that the passage does NOT teach anything about fallen angel procreating with human women!!! Yes, we are definitely in agreement on that.

Actually, my position on the passage would also drive "a final nail in the coffin" of the position that "the sons of God" gendered the "giants," since it places the gendering of children by "the sons of God" after the existence of the "giants."  Thus it would be impossible for the "giants" themselves to be those children. this is true

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
40 minutes ago, Jim_Alaska said:

"Men" means "Men" and that's all that "Men" means. There is no justification in the text to assert that "men" means giants.

You can only get that kind of false teaching from reading after the works of "men", not the actual Bible text in question.

"Men", or "man" is also sometimes used in the KJB to refer to "men and women" collectively; "human beings" if you will. Giants are men too: Goliath of Gath was just a huge man. I think Brother Scott and myself both agree that "giants" were indeed just big men and not the descendants of angelic beings.

Exactly as I have pointed out above, the word "after" does NOT always mean "later in time".

Edited by heartstrings
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Just now, heartstrings said:

"Men", or "man" is also sometimes used in the KJB to refer to "men and women" collectively; "human beings" if you will. Giants are men too: Goliath of Gath was just a huge man. I think Brother Scott and myself both agree that "giants" were indeed just big men and not the descendants of angelic beings.

Exactly as I have pointed out above, the word "after" does NOT always mean "later in time". And none of what I posted here came from any "works of men"; I got it by studying the definitions of English words and by studying the King James Bible.

Brother Wayne,

I am pretty sure that Brother Jim was confronting Brother Chester ("Critical Mass"), not you, as follows:

2 hours ago, Critical Mass said:

Anything but believe the simple English, right pastor?

1 hour ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Actually, my position IS based upon the simple grammar of the English.  "Also AFTER that" means AFTER.  Pretty simple English, huh?

First, "there were giants in the earth in those days."  Then "also AFTER that," "the sons of God" with "the daughters of men" had children who grew up to be "mighty MEN which were of old, MEN of renown."  The simple grammar of the English is clear.  The "giants" could NOT be the children from "the sons of God" with "the daughters of men" because those "giants" existed "in the earth" BEFORE "the sons of God" had their children with "the daughters of men."  Furthermore, the simple English says that the children from "the sons of God" with "the daughters of men" were "mighty MEN," not "giants," and "MEN of renown," not "giants."

ALL pretty simple English here.

36 minutes ago, Jim_Alaska said:

"Men" means "Men" and that's all that "Men" means. There is no justification in the text to assert that "men" means giants.

You can only get that kind of false teaching from reading after the works of "men", not the actual Bible text in question.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
6 minutes ago, heartstrings said:

You know, what would be most beneficial, is for us to know WHY the Lord put the giants before the semicolon and all that. What deeper spiritual truth is here for us to learn and grow from? You know there has to be one.

Brother Wayne,

Although I do not necessarily agree with your position concerning the grammatical meaning for the phrase "also after that" in Genesis 6:4, I do believe that you have a fairly solid grasp concerning the "lesson" that the Lord our God is seeking to teach us by including the reference to the "giants" in this context.  In fact, until you presented your thoughts concerning that "lesson," I had not really considered it that closely.

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...