Jump to content
  • Welcome to Online Baptist

    Free to join.

Recommended Posts

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was thinking just yesterday; the nation of Israel with all its high tech defenses, nuclear weapons, and superbly trained personnel has probably the mightiest military for its size in the entire world. In that sense they too are "mighty men" "of renown" surrounded by "giants".

Edited by heartstrings

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, heartstrings said:

I was thinking just yesterday; the nation of Israel with all its high tech defenses, nuclear weapons, and superbly trained personnel has probably the mightiest military for its size in the entire world. In that sense they too are "mighty men" "of renown" surrounded by "giants".

A great example Brother Wayne and very true. But in context this is not "in those days".  LOL :coffee:  Sorry, I couldn't help myself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, beameup said:
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

There's that word with that unconventional meaning again. :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, heartstrings said:

There's that word with that unconventional meaning again. :) 

There is an old saying in the math & finance world: "if you torture the numbers enough, they will confess to anything".  The same basic principle apparently applies to sentences (KJV 8th grade English, in this case).  The information is there, in plain easy-to-understand English, in Genesis 6.  The Holy Spirit put it there for a good reason.

As also in all his [Paul's] epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood,
which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest [wrestle], as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. 2 Peter 3:16
Edited by beameup

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, beameup said:

(KJV 8th grade English, in this case).  The information is there, in plain easy-to-understand English, in Genesis 6.  The Holy Spirit put it there for a good reason.

INDEED.

9 hours 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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

15 hours ago, beameup said:

There is an old saying in the math & finance world: "if you torture the numbers enough, they will confess to anything".  The same basic principle apparently applies to sentences (KJV 8th grade English, in this case).  The information is there, in plain easy-to-understand English, in Genesis 6.  The Holy Spirit put it there for a good reason.

As also in all his [Paul's] epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood,
which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest [wrestle], as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. 2 Peter 3:16

Bro, does Genesis 6 specifically call the sons of God "angels". If it doesn't, then WHO is wresting the scriptures? :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, heartstrings said:

 

Bro, does Genesis 6 specifically call the sons of God "angels". If it doesn't, then WHO is wresting the scriptures? :) 

In the Old Testament, ben ha'elohiym always refers to angels.  But you knew that, didn't you?

 

Details.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Greek terminology for 'sons of God', translate to exactly the same as the Hebrew "sons of God": 'Sons" meaning a male child, or generally, children, male AND female, or a people. Of God. So in the NT we are told that Jesus Christ gives us the power to be the sons of God, why would we assume this is any different? There is nothing in the context of Genesis to demand that it is angels, fallen or otherwise, and really, biblically, we have precedence to assume it is NOT angels, since they neither marry nor are given in marriage, and as far as we know, they do not procreate. As well, never do we see ANYWHERE in scripture that fallen angels have any ability to assume physical form as we see the holy angels do, or at least, appearing to have human form. The only dealing with fallen angels/devils that we ever see are spirits who have possessed humans. But even if this were the case, it doesn't mean the children born from a possessed male would be effected in any way, as though they passed on a wicked spirit-we are all already born with a sinful spirit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, beameup said:

In the Old Testament, ben ha'elohiym always refers to angels.  But you knew that, didn't you?

And it certainly would not be of any value to consider the following verse, since the Hebrew construction is not exactly the same --

Deuteronomy 14:1 -- "Ye are the children of the LORD your God: ye shall not cut yourselves, nor make any baldness between your eyes for the dead."

Edited by Pastor Scott Markle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

And it certainly would not be of any value to consider the following verse, since the Hebrew construction is not exactly the same --

Deuteronomy 14:1 -- "Ye are the children of the LORD your God: ye shall not cut yourselves, nor make any baldness between your eyes for the dead."

Would that be like....dividing your unibrow? ;)

double_mustache.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, heartstrings said:

No sir, It means "sons of God", exactly as translated in the King James Bible. If it referred to "angels" it would have said so. That's just some of that "plain easy-to-understand English" you mentioned.

You mean like this?

Now there was a day when the sons of God angels came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.  Job 1:6
 
Or this?
 
Again there was a day when the sons of God angels came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD.  Job 2:1
 
PS: "sons of God" - bene ha Elohim - were a direct creation of God, like Adam was a direct creation of God.
Edited by beameup

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, beameup said:

You mean like this?

Now there was a day when the sons of God angels came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.  Job 1:6
 
Or this?
 
Again there was a day when the sons of God angels came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD.  Job 2:1
 

Are these two verses supposed to prove anything other than your willingness to change the Holy Spirit inspired word of God to suit your own private interpretation?

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Loading...

Article Categories

About Us

Since 2001, Online Baptist has been an Independent Baptist website, and we exclusively use the King James Version of the Bible. We pride ourselves on a community that uplifts the Lord.

Contact Us

You can contact us using the following link. Contact Us or for questions regarding this website please contact @pastormatt or email James Foley at jfoley@sisqtel.net

Android App

Online Baptist has a custom App for all android users. You can download it from the Google Play store or click the following icon.

×
×
  • Create New...