Those pesky angels again.....

[Jerry]

On 1/12/2024 at 7:32 PM, Joe Chandler 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, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

There were giants in the earth even after the flood. They were human. Goliath and his brothers were giants - but they were certainly human. Today we also have dwarves and pigmies - still humans.

Angels don’t procreate, as Joe has basically stated (they don’t reproduce after their kind):

Mark 12:25
For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven.

16 hours ago, SureWord said:

The fact that there are times in the Bible that they can be mistaken as humans (Hebrews 13:2) leaves the door open that they could also reproduce with a female.

Actually, the Bible indicates they take on a human appearance - not that they are mistaken for humans. Having an appearance does not make something exactly the same as that thing - ie. taking on a human appearance doesn’t make them mortal, able to procreate, able to get saved - and many other things humans do.

[BrotherTony]

18 hours ago, SureWord said:

You are assuming an angel is vastly different than a human. The fact that there are times in the Bible that they can be mistaken as humans (Hebrews 13:2) leaves the door open that they could also reproduce with a female.

I don't see anywhere where it would leave the door open for that. Care to extrapolate a bit?

Edited January 14 by BrotherTony

[heartstrings]

On 1/13/2024 at 10:55 PM, SureWord said:

You are assuming an angel is vastly different than a human. The fact that there are times in the Bible that they can be mistaken as humans (Hebrews 13:2) leaves the door open that they could also reproduce with a female.

Genesis 6 is the summary of the more specific events in Genesis 4 and 5. 

In Genesis 4 it says Cain and "Lamech" killed people and Lamech took "two wives". This zeros in on the fact that men were committing polygamy and murder. Jesus even stated that "in the days before the flood" they were "marrying and giving in marriage". Genesis 6 sums it up saying they were "taking wives of all" and the earth was filled with violence". At the end of Genesis 4 it says that when Seth's son "Enos" was born, "men began to call upon the name of the Lord". Subsequently, the men who did so became "sons of God" by faith. Those men of faith are then NAMED in Genesis 5 and these same men are also named in the lineage of Christ in the Book of Luke. All those in the lineage of Christ were believers/saved people. Genesis 6 sums it all up referring to them as "sons of God" "taking wives of all"

So, where these saved people went wrong, however, is by participating in the polygamy and marrying for beauty instead of spirituality and character.  So when they did so, and lived for hundreds of years, each "son of God" witnessed his "Seth" family lineage grow into a superpower within his own lifetime. They all would have been "mighty men" by sheer population, by wealth, by military strength, and by political alliances(the giving in marriage thing). They were conforming to the world. The "giants" were simply big warriors like the ones in the land of Canaan and nothing more. In a world without machine guns or other high-tech weapons, size was an important factor in hand to hand combat.. Hence, "giants" were to be feared. Angels are not mentioned in this story of Genesis 4. 5, or 6.

Edited January 16 by heartstrings

[Jerry]

1 hour ago, heartstrings said:

All those in the lineage of Christ were believers/saved people.

Good post, though I would disagree with that statement. The lineage of Christ has some ungodly kings (for example), who I would definitely not consider saved. Though I do agree that all those listed in Genesis 5 were. Several or all of them were obviously prophets to name their children in such a way that collectively all their names point to the Messiah and what He would come to do. 

https://buy-the-truth.blogspot.com/2006/06/picture-in-genesis-five.html?m=1

The NT also refers to Noah and the patriarchs as being saved.

 

[heartstrings]

[quote]Matthew Henry observes, "All the patriarchs here, except Noah, were born before Adam died..." [/quote]

Genesis 6:1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, 2That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

Then Luke 3:38 says...Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God. 

Shows that Adam being "the son of God", had to be included with those mentioned as "the sons of God" since he was alive "when men began to multiply".

 

Edited January 18 by heartstrings

[R Sauter]

You guys are arguing over who the Nephilim are missing the entire point of the OP!

Or perhaps it is what I believe should be the focal point.

I really do not care what your position is. Good men come to differing conclusions and agree to disagree. My ultimate position on the matter is that I just do not know - OK, I tend to side with the line of Seth intermingling with the line of Cain but I digress...

My problem with this Sunday School teacher would not be that I disagree with his position but rather that he has shown himself somewhat lazy in his study of the matter. I want to walk into a Sunday School class believing that it will be worth my time and the teacher has actually put in the time and effort to make it worth my while! If you are teaching older members of the congregation, it should be a given that those sitting in the seats are not dumb and that the one preparing the lesson should expect a little scrutiny.

If you differ with me regarding whatever, you will have my utmost respect if you have studied and are able to give a well reasoned defense of your position. I may still disagree with you but you will have forced me to think through and come up with a well-reasoned defense of my own.

[heartstrings]

On 1/21/2024 at 8:24 PM, R Sauter said:

You guys are arguing over who the Nephilim are missing the entire point of the OP!

Or perhaps it is what I believe should be the focal point.

I really do not care what your position is. Good men come to differing conclusions and agree to disagree. My ultimate position on the matter is that I just do not know - OK, I tend to side with the line of Seth intermingling with the line of Cain but I digress...

My problem with this Sunday School teacher would not be that I disagree with his position but rather that he has shown himself somewhat lazy in his study of the matter. I want to walk into a Sunday School class believing that it will be worth my time and the teacher has actually put in the time and effort to make it worth my while! If you are teaching older members of the congregation, it should be a given that those sitting in the seats are not dumb and that the one preparing the lesson should expect a little scrutiny.

If you differ with me regarding whatever, you will have my utmost respect if you have studied and are able to give a well reasoned defense of your position. I may still disagree with you but you will have forced me to think through and come up with a well-reasoned defense of my own.

I have studied this thoroughly, as well as several other Bible subjects. Do I know all about it? Certainly not. But it would take up most of the Sunday School hour to lay out what I have found in my research on this. I do think it is important; otherwise the Holy Spirit would not have inspired it to be included in the Bible. I'm thinking that is the most important question for me is : What are we supposed to learn from this passage of scripture? I mean really. All I have heard from Sunday School teachers and a pastor is that angels "cohabited with women"(when the King James clearly says they took "wives"), and that the giants were hybrid beings without souls. (How fortunate not to have been born a "Nephilim" huh). Or maybe it means something like this......

1I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service. 2And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.

That's what I believe God's people (sog's) were doing. they were "marrying and giving in marriage" (still saved)  conforming to the world. And God destroyed the world after the last one of them died(Methuselah). Even let him live the longest life recorded in History showing God's longsuffering. All were dead before the flood came except for brother Noah who was "perfect in his generations". He "generated" his three sons only with his one(1) wife while he proved what was the "good, and acceptable, and perfect will of God."

Edited January 24 by heartstrings

[Jerry]

Noah was obviously saved, therefore a son of God - so Methuselah was not the last one prior to the flood. The last one who died perhaps - dying the year of the flood. His name means “when he dies, then comes judgement”, a prophecy for the other believers to gauge when they were getting close to God’s time of judgement.

[heartstrings]

On 1/31/2024 at 1:36 AM, Jerry said:

Noah was obviously saved, therefore a son of God - so Methuselah was not the last one prior to the flood. The last one who died perhaps - dying the year of the flood. His name means “when he dies, then comes judgement”, a prophecy for the other believers to gauge when they were getting close to God’s time of judgement.

True, Noah was a son of God too. The difference between he and Methusela and the others was; he was "perfect in his generations" .I believe that refers to the fact that he had one wife and ",generated" all three of his sons only by his one wife. He was not "taking wives of all" aka " marrying and giving in marriage" like the other "sons of God".

[Jerry]

It’s not a reference to him procreating. It mentions generations because he lived in two entirely different generations of people - those before the flood and those after.

The word for generations in Genesis 6:9 means:

“properly, a revolution of time, i.e. an age or generation; also a dwelling.” It comes from a root word meaning “dwell.”

It is a reference to the times he lived, not any children he may have begotten. I do not know if the word “generation(s)” is used in a sexual sense in the Bible (it will take a little bit of time to look up and check all the Hebrew words in those 206 passages), but it is certain that this particular word used for this exact Hebrew word translated here and in 132 other passages is not referring to sexual activity or offspring.

[Jerry]

I started looking up the word generation(s), and the first time it is used in English, it is thus Hebrew word (that is used 39 times):

h8435. תּוֹלְדָה tôleḏâ; or תֹּלְדָה toldah; from 3205; (plural only) descent, i.e. family; (figuratively) history: — birth, generations.
 

So this one is sometimes referring to descendants, children - though the first reference is to the heavens and the earth:

Genesis 2:4
These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,
 

In Genesis 6:9, it is an entirely different word and a different meaning, as shown above.

[Jerry]

To clarify, Genesis 6:9 has two different word for generations.

Genesis 6:9
These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.
 

The first one is the one used throughout Genesis 11 times in the phrase “these are the generations of” to give the genealogies of first the heavens and the earth, then the various lines of people whose history is given in that book.

Though the word used in the phrase “perfect in his generations” is the word used for age, dwelling, etc.

Edited March 15 by Jerry
Clarification

[heartstrings]

On 3/14/2024 at 9:31 PM, Jerry said:

It’s not a reference to him procreating. It mentions generations because he lived in two entirely different generations of people - those before the flood and those after.

The word for generations in Genesis 6:9 means:

“properly, a revolution of time, i.e. an age or generation; also a dwelling.” It comes from a root word meaning “dwell.”

It is a reference to the times he lived, not any children he may have begotten. I do not know if the word “generation(s)” is used in a sexual sense in the Bible (it will take a little bit of time to look up and check all the Hebrew words in those 206 passages), but it is certain that this particular word used for this exact Hebrew word translated here and in 132 other passages is not referring to sexual activity or offspring.

Noah would not be considered "perfect" after the flood. He got drunk and then cursed his own grandson for something the poor kid didn't do. I believe he was a flawed sinner saved by grace just like you and me. It's not speaking of being a "perfect" man for sure. But one can be absolutely perfect in God's prescription for procreation by marrying one woman and gendering all of your children solely and exclusively by that one wife. That is exactly what Noah did. We say we believe that the King James Bible was accurately translated into the English language by the providence of God, down to the last detail. Yet we have to go to the Greek or original Hebrew to determine what it really means only to find it doesn't mean the same from one passage to another(only to be determined by having access to Hebrew or Greek)? Here you have one word "generations" and it means different things in different places? Did the folks back in 1611 have access to a Strong's Concordance or anything else in order to determine what the words meant? The word Generation comes from the same root  that our word "generator" comes from. It basically means to "produce" something: does that mean "dwelling" or "revolution of time". I guess, if a bunch of guys built a house you could say they "generated" the house.

When the Bible says, in Genesis 5 "These are the generations of Adam" it's talking about what Adam "produced". In other words Adam "generated" every single one of the people named in Genesis 5. That's all it means. I can't help what Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek or whatever word the two different instances of "generations" came from; In English "generations" means "generations". And nobody mentioned "sexual activity".  All I'm saying is, just like a "generator" produces electricity, the word "generations" means  "productions" or "things produced"..Actually, I believe Noah "generated" more than just Shem, Ham and Japheth. If you look at the sentence "these are the generations of Noah" is followed by a colon(:). That means that what follows in the sentence is what those "generations" are.

1. Noah was a just man (how? by trusting God in faith)

2. He was perfect in his generations (already explained)

3. And  Noah walked with God (Noah chose to not only trust God, but he chose to walk with God)

All 3 of these things were produced in Noah's life. 

generation

noun as in creation, production

Compare Synonyms

SynonymsAntonyms

Strong matches

• bearing
• breeding
• formation
• genesis
• origination
• procreation
• propagation
• reproduction

Weak matches

• begetting
• bringing forth
• engenderment
• fructifying
• multiplying
• spawning

https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/generation

Edited March 19 by heartstrings
clarification