What about Ufos and Cryptozoology then?

[Garee]

I understand the view popularized by Augustine that you are conveying here. Genesis 6:1-4 does not properly indicate what righteousness actually was. So what was the righteousness of Seth when God hadn't even clarified what that would look like yet? There was no law, no temple, no nothing. The sacrifice of the time covered the whole family whether it was Seth or otherwise. Cain was marked by God after he murdered Abel showing that God was still preserving Cain and did not allow any harm to come to him.

Also, Nephilim actually means 'fallen one'. Where does the distinction between sons of God and daughters of men arise if there were only full-DNA humans? Nephilim are mentioned in the Bible, we may agree, but why make the distinction of giants called something other than sons, daughters, giants of men, or just people? It indicates another species of another source by its own right.

No UFO's

I would offer . The word giants represent mightily men of old called the renown .They were moved by faith of Christ that worked in them to both will and perform the good pleasure of God .We might call them superhero’s

The word renown is used 11 times in the King James. . We do not wrestle against flesh and blood to begin with .That would seem to be where the father of lies would take it and make it about the flesh. The things seen . The legion has no substance in anyway shape or form .He neds to form to perform his lying faithless wonders. We therefore look to the things not seen the eternal.

Remember as sons of God we are not what we will be. .

The renown of God like the son of man David a giant of faith defeated the enemies of God as a superhero .Goliath the enimies superhero seemed like a grasshopper to David .

Hebrew 11 has a whole listing of might men of renouwn giants of faith moved by faith the power of God .Some lived in caves. Some the world was not worthy of them so he hid them. Last first, first last

Genesis 6:4There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.


Numbers 1:16These were the renowned of the congregation, princes of the tribes of their fathers, heads of thousands in Israel.

Numbers 16:2And they rose up before Moses, with certain of the children of Israel, two hundred and fifty princes of the assembly, famous in the congregation, men of renown:

Isaiah 14:20Thou shalt not be joined with them in burial, because thou hast destroyed thy land, and slain thy people: the seed of evildoers shall never be renowned.

 

[Major]

Have to take into account the word and the context, but the ones mentioned in Job were not merely humans!

Correct.......The LOCATION of heaven with God demands that they were angels.
The CONTXT of them coming with Satan then demands that they were fallen angels.

 

[Major]

All who now die in Jesus now go straight to heaven, as paul longed to be reunited with Lord jesus!

Correct. The Paradise side of Sheol was emptied when Christ took those spirits with Him when He assended.

 

[Major]

No UFO's

I would offer . The word giants represent mightily men of old called the renown .They were moved by faith of Christ that worked in them to both will and perform the good pleasure of God .We might call them superhero’s

The word renown is used 11 times in the King James. . We do not wrestle against flesh and blood to begin with .That would seem to be where the father of lies would take it and make it about the flesh. The things seen . The legion has no substance in anyway shape or form .He neds to form to perform his lying faithless wonders. We therefore look to the things not seen the eternal.

Remember as sons of God we are not what we will be. .

The renown of God like the son of man David a giant of faith defeated the enemies of God as a superhero .Goliath the enimies superhero seemed like a grasshopper to David .

Hebrew 11 has a whole listing of might men of renouwn giants of faith moved by faith the power of God .Some lived in caves. Some the world was not worthy of them so he hid them. Last first, first last

Genesis 6:4There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.


Numbers 1:16These were the renowned of the congregation, princes of the tribes of their fathers, heads of thousands in Israel.

Numbers 16:2And they rose up before Moses, with certain of the children of Israel, two hundred and fifty princes of the assembly, famous in the congregation, men of renown:

Isaiah 14:20Thou shalt not be joined with them in burial, because thou hast destroyed thy land, and slain thy people: the seed of evildoers shall never be renowned.

In this thread there needs to be a clear explanation of what is being discussed. In the Genesis 6 story there are 4 views available to believe. #1 is rejected outright and really needs no explanation.

1. UFO.

2. Angels View.
Some people claim that in the Old Testament the phrase “sons of God” always refers to angels. The phrase is used in Hosea 1:10 to refer to humans, but advocates of the angels view argue that this phrase cannot mean the same thing as it does in Genesis 6 because Hosea used the singular form of the word “God,” El, whereas the writer of Genesis 6 used the plural form, Elohim. The assumption here is that because these passages do not use precisely the same terms, they are not referring to the same thing. This assumption is incorrect, however, because different words are often used to refer to the same thing. The words El and Elohim are frequently used interchangeably in the Old Testament, and there is no doubt that both passages refer to God. It is not the case, therefore, that “sons of God” always refers to angels.

Most advocates of the angels view point to Job 1:6 and 2:1 to support their claim that “sons of God” refers to angels. They argue that since it refers to angels in Job, then it also refers to angels in Genesis 6. In this case the assumption is the opposite of the one above; that is, these passages must refer to the same thing simply because they use the same terms. This is not necessarily true, however. Words or phrases often mean different things or are used differently in different contexts. The phrase “Son of Man,” for example, refers to Ezekiel in the book of Ezekiel, but in the Gospels it refers to Jesus. One must demonstrate from the context of the passages in Genesis and Job that “sons of God” means the same thing in both passages and not simply assume this is the case because the words are the same.

3. Tyrants View.
This view claims that the phrase “sons of God” in Genesis 6 refers to male humans who were possessed by demons. If the term “sons of God” does not refer to angelic beings (demons), however, then there is no reference to them in the text at all. These interpreters assume the involvement of fallen angelic beings from the angels view and smuggle this assumption into the text while eliminating the only term that could refer to them. This is called “begging the question”: the conclusion is assumed and used as part of the argument.

4. Line of Seth View.
Both the angels view and the tyrants view try to explain who the “sons of God” are, but neither explains why the story was recorded in Genesis. From the context, the line of Seth view explains who these sons of God were and why the story is here. In Exodus 4:22–23, Moses’ audience, Israel, is identified by God as “My son, My first-born.” These sons of God were about to enter the Promised Land, which was populated with people who were not part of the Abrahamic covenant. God warned Israel not to take foreign wives (Deut. 7:3). This would become a recurring problem for Israel. Moses used this story in Genesis 6 to warn Israel not to abandon God’s instruction. God is the one who determines what is good, and Israel was to be on guard against the enticement of the world that would lead them away from the pure worship and dedication to the God of Israel.

In both the angels view and the tyrants view try to explain who the “sons of God” are, but neither explains why the story was recorded in Genesis. From the context, the line of Seth view explains who these sons of God were and why the story is here. In Exodus 4:22–23, Moses’ audience, Israel, is identified by God as “My son, My first-born.” These sons of God were about to enter the Promised Land, which was populated with people who were not part of the Abrahamic covenant. God warned Israel not to take foreign wives (Deut. 7:3). This would become a recurring problem for Israel. Moses used this story in Genesis 6 to warn Israel not to abandon God’s instruction. God is the one who determines what is good, and Israel was to be on guard against the enticement of the world that would lead them away from the pure worship and dedication to the God of Israel.

I do not post this to argue for against but only to try and educate those who are wondering what is being discussed and why.

 

[CPerkins]

In this thread there needs to be a clear explanation of what is being discussed. In the Genesis 6 story there are 4 views available to believe. #1 is rejected outright and really needs no explanation.

1. UFO.

2. Angels View.
Some people claim that in the Old Testament the phrase “sons of God” always refers to angels. The phrase is used in Hosea 1:10 to refer to humans, but advocates of the angels view argue that this phrase cannot mean the same thing as it does in Genesis 6 because Hosea used the singular form of the word “God,” El, whereas the writer of Genesis 6 used the plural form, Elohim. The assumption here is that because these passages do not use precisely the same terms, they are not referring to the same thing. This assumption is incorrect, however, because different words are often used to refer to the same thing. The words El and Elohim are frequently used interchangeably in the Old Testament, and there is no doubt that both passages refer to God. It is not the case, therefore, that “sons of God” always refers to angels.

Most advocates of the angels view point to Job 1:6 and 2:1 to support their claim that “sons of God” refers to angels. They argue that since it refers to angels in Job, then it also refers to angels in Genesis 6. In this case the assumption is the opposite of the one above; that is, these passages must refer to the same thing simply because they use the same terms. This is not necessarily true, however. Words or phrases often mean different things or are used differently in different contexts. The phrase “Son of Man,” for example, refers to Ezekiel in the book of Ezekiel, but in the Gospels it refers to Jesus. One must demonstrate from the context of the passages in Genesis and Job that “sons of God” means the same thing in both passages and not simply assume this is the case because the words are the same.

3. Tyrants View.
This view claims that the phrase “sons of God” in Genesis 6 refers to male humans who were possessed by demons. If the term “sons of God” does not refer to angelic beings (demons), however, then there is no reference to them in the text at all. These interpreters assume the involvement of fallen angelic beings from the angels view and smuggle this assumption into the text while eliminating the only term that could refer to them. This is called “begging the question”: the conclusion is assumed and used as part of the argument.

4. Line of Seth View.
Both the angels view and the tyrants view try to explain who the “sons of God” are, but neither explains why the story was recorded in Genesis. From the context, the line of Seth view explains who these sons of God were and why the story is here. In Exodus 4:22–23, Moses’ audience, Israel, is identified by God as “My son, My first-born.” These sons of God were about to enter the Promised Land, which was populated with people who were not part of the Abrahamic covenant. God warned Israel not to take foreign wives (Deut. 7:3). This would become a recurring problem for Israel. Moses used this story in Genesis 6 to warn Israel not to abandon God’s instruction. God is the one who determines what is good, and Israel was to be on guard against the enticement of the world that would lead them away from the pure worship and dedication to the God of Israel.

In both the angels view and the tyrants view try to explain who the “sons of God” are, but neither explains why the story was recorded in Genesis. From the context, the line of Seth view explains who these sons of God were and why the story is here. In Exodus 4:22–23, Moses’ audience, Israel, is identified by God as “My son, My first-born.” These sons of God were about to enter the Promised Land, which was populated with people who were not part of the Abrahamic covenant. God warned Israel not to take foreign wives (Deut. 7:3). This would become a recurring problem for Israel. Moses used this story in Genesis 6 to warn Israel not to abandon God’s instruction. God is the one who determines what is good, and Israel was to be on guard against the enticement of the world that would lead them away from the pure worship and dedication to the God of Israel.

I do not post this to argue for against but only to try and educate those who are wondering what is being discussed and why.

Thanks for presenting the current views on these passages of text. As individuals we are all accountable to God and part of that accountability is listening to his Spirit as it guides us.

To do that it is necessary to spend time in God's word actively listening to God. Years ago, God reminded me it was necessary to prove all things.

1 Thes 5:21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (KJV)

I also think about this scripture though it is specifically talking of meats, it is clearly a general principle that applies to sin.

Rom 14:23 And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin. (KJV)

What does this all mean to me? It means that I take all that I hear from men and compare it to God's word. Studying it, asking God for guidance, so that I can know in my heart the word of God in a matter. If we are each satisfied with our search, then we know our heart is right with God.

As Christians that is what we all seek, to be right with God.

 

[Nazarene Servant]

Thanks for presenting the current views on these passages of text. As individuals we are all accountable to God and part of that accountability is listening to his Spirit as it guides us.

To do that it is necessary to spend time in God's word actively listening to God. Years ago, God reminded me it was necessary to prove all things.

1 Thes 5:21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (KJV)

I also think about this scripture though it is specifically talking of meats, it is clearly a general principle that applies to sin.

Rom 14:23 And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin. (KJV)

What does this all mean to me? It means that I take all that I hear from men and compare it to God's word. Studying it, asking God for guidance, so that I can know in my heart the word of God in a matter. If we are each satisfied with our search, then we know our heart is right with God.

As Christians that is what we all seek, to be right with God.

I love this. Our goal is to be in agreement with God and that doesn't always correlate
to agreement with one another. The peace that He gives is in grace alone as being sufficient.
We each have to decide what is our focus in our relationship with Jesus and how that will
look to the world. I have decided to follow Jesus, no turning back. I have tried in the past
to impress God and others with how 'righteous' I was but I was only fooling myself. As long
as everyone else is the problem I am the problem.

 

[Major]

Thanks for presenting the current views on these passages of text. As individuals we are all accountable to God and part of that accountability is listening to his Spirit as it guides us.

To do that it is necessary to spend time in God's word actively listening to God. Years ago, God reminded me it was necessary to prove all things.

1 Thes 5:21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (KJV)

I also think about this scripture though it is specifically talking of meats, it is clearly a general principle that applies to sin.

Rom 14:23 And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin. (KJV)

What does this all mean to me? It means that I take all that I hear from men and compare it to God's word. Studying it, asking God for guidance, so that I can know in my heart the word of God in a matter. If we are each satisfied with our search, then we know our heart is right with God.

As Christians that is what we all seek, to be right with God.

EXACTLY my point !!!

We tend to "hear" all kinds of things.
We also like to "think" all kinds of thnings.

The popular thing today is to pick out or hear something and then we weave our "Wants" around those things.

Story.......Little dirty Johnny came home from Sunday School one day and the lesson had been on Moses and how he and his people had escaped the Egyptians. When he got home his mom asked him what he has learned today.

Johnny said......Mom, we learned how Moses went behind enemy lines on a rescue mission. We learned how he beat off gators, and flies and snakes and got the people free.

Then we leaned that when they got to the Red Sea he had a bunch of engineers build a big pontoon bridge and all the people escaped. Then Moses called in an air strike to his headquarters and they blew up all the Egyptians and then he called in a bomb strike to blow up the bridge.

Johnny's mother looked at him and asked....Son, is that really what was said"??????

Johnny said, "well no mom, But if I told you what the Preacher really said, you would never have believed it!!!!!

 

[YeshuaFan]

In this thread there needs to be a clear explanation of what is being discussed. In the Genesis 6 story there are 4 views available to believe. #1 is rejected outright and really needs no explanation.

1. UFO.

2. Angels View.
Some people claim that in the Old Testament the phrase “sons of God” always refers to angels. The phrase is used in Hosea 1:10 to refer to humans, but advocates of the angels view argue that this phrase cannot mean the same thing as it does in Genesis 6 because Hosea used the singular form of the word “God,” El, whereas the writer of Genesis 6 used the plural form, Elohim. The assumption here is that because these passages do not use precisely the same terms, they are not referring to the same thing. This assumption is incorrect, however, because different words are often used to refer to the same thing. The words El and Elohim are frequently used interchangeably in the Old Testament, and there is no doubt that both passages refer to God. It is not the case, therefore, that “sons of God” always refers to angels.

Most advocates of the angels view point to Job 1:6 and 2:1 to support their claim that “sons of God” refers to angels. They argue that since it refers to angels in Job, then it also refers to angels in Genesis 6. In this case the assumption is the opposite of the one above; that is, these passages must refer to the same thing simply because they use the same terms. This is not necessarily true, however. Words or phrases often mean different things or are used differently in different contexts. The phrase “Son of Man,” for example, refers to Ezekiel in the book of Ezekiel, but in the Gospels it refers to Jesus. One must demonstrate from the context of the passages in Genesis and Job that “sons of God” means the same thing in both passages and not simply assume this is the case because the words are the same.

3. Tyrants View.
This view claims that the phrase “sons of God” in Genesis 6 refers to male humans who were possessed by demons. If the term “sons of God” does not refer to angelic beings (demons), however, then there is no reference to them in the text at all. These interpreters assume the involvement of fallen angelic beings from the angels view and smuggle this assumption into the text while eliminating the only term that could refer to them. This is called “begging the question”: the conclusion is assumed and used as part of the argument.

4. Line of Seth View.
Both the angels view and the tyrants view try to explain who the “sons of God” are, but neither explains why the story was recorded in Genesis. From the context, the line of Seth view explains who these sons of God were and why the story is here. In Exodus 4:22–23, Moses’ audience, Israel, is identified by God as “My son, My first-born.” These sons of God were about to enter the Promised Land, which was populated with people who were not part of the Abrahamic covenant. God warned Israel not to take foreign wives (Deut. 7:3). This would become a recurring problem for Israel. Moses used this story in Genesis 6 to warn Israel not to abandon God’s instruction. God is the one who determines what is good, and Israel was to be on guard against the enticement of the world that would lead them away from the pure worship and dedication to the God of Israel.

In both the angels view and the tyrants view try to explain who the “sons of God” are, but neither explains why the story was recorded in Genesis. From the context, the line of Seth view explains who these sons of God were and why the story is here. In Exodus 4:22–23, Moses’ audience, Israel, is identified by God as “My son, My first-born.” These sons of God were about to enter the Promised Land, which was populated with people who were not part of the Abrahamic covenant. God warned Israel not to take foreign wives (Deut. 7:3). This would become a recurring problem for Israel. Moses used this story in Genesis 6 to warn Israel not to abandon God’s instruction. God is the one who determines what is good, and Israel was to be on guard against the enticement of the world that would lead them away from the pure worship and dedication to the God of Israel.

I do not post this to argue for against but only to try and educate those who are wondering what is being discussed and why.

Both views 2 and 4 have been seen as acceptable viewpoints within Orthodox Christianity.

 

[Nazarene Servant]

Both views 2 and 4 have been seen as acceptable viewpoints within Orthodox Christianity.

I won't be too sad when another thread comes to life.
There are a lot of matter-of-fact statements and I don't
think anyone here was alive when it occurred.

 

[Lanolin]

The Bible does say there were giants in those days, and also talks about unicorns, dragons and leviathan. I have no real reason to doubt that many creatures existed that are no longer are around, because of sin, destruction and death.

I was learning the other day about a plant called tecomanthe, which was the only one ever found of its kind on an island off the coast of NZ, the very LAST surviving plant, because the goats had eaten all the the others. Someone took a cutting, and now it's a popular garden plant.

People are kinda arrogant to assume that they know absolutely everything there is to know about this earth.

 

[Nazarene Servant]

The Bible does say there were giants in those days, and also talks about unicorns, dragons and leviathan. I have no real reason to doubt that many creatures existed that are no longer are around, because of sin, destruction and death.

I was learning the other day about a plant called tecomanthe, which was the only one ever found of its kind on an island off the coast of NZ, the very LAST surviving plant, because the goats had eaten all the the others. Someone took a cutting, and now it's a popular garden plant.

People are kinda arrogant to assume that they know absolutely everything there is to know about this earth.

Lanolin, very well said. Also, I am sorry for how I treated you.
I owe you this public apology because I was no example of Christ
toward you publicly. I appreciate what you bring to this forum.

 

[Garee]

In this thread there needs to be a clear explanation of what is being discussed. In the Genesis 6 story there are 4 views available to believe. #1 is rejected outright and really needs no explanation.

1. UFO.

2. Angels View.
Some people claim that in the Old Testament the phrase “sons of God” always refers to angels. The phrase is used in Hosea 1:10 to refer to humans, but advocates of the angels view argue that this phrase cannot mean the same thing as it does in Genesis 6 because Hosea used the singular form of the word “God,” El, whereas the writer of Genesis 6 used the plural form, Elohim. The assumption here is that because these passages do not use precisely the same terms, they are not referring to the same thing. This assumption is incorrect, however, because different words are often used to refer to the same thing. The words El and Elohim are frequently used interchangeably in the Old Testament, and there is no doubt that both passages refer to God. It is not the case, therefore, that “sons of God” always refers to angels.

Most advocates of the angels view point to Job 1:6 and 2:1 to support their claim that “sons of God” refers to angels. They argue that since it refers to angels in Job, then it also refers to angels in Genesis 6. In this case the assumption is the opposite of the one above; that is, these passages must refer to the same thing simply because they use the same terms. This is not necessarily true, however. Words or phrases often mean different things or are used differently in different contexts. The phrase “Son of Man,” for example, refers to Ezekiel in the book of Ezekiel, but in the Gospels it refers to Jesus. One must demonstrate from the context of the passages in Genesis and Job that “sons of God” means the same thing in both passages and not simply assume this is the case because the words are the same.

3. Tyrants View.
This view claims that the phrase “sons of God” in Genesis 6 refers to male humans who were possessed by demons. If the term “sons of God” does not refer to angelic beings (demons), however, then there is no reference to them in the text at all. These interpreters assume the involvement of fallen angelic beings from the angels view and smuggle this assumption into the text while eliminating the only term that could refer to them. This is called “begging the question”: the conclusion is assumed and used as part of the argument.

4. Line of Seth View.
Both the angels view and the tyrants view try to explain who the “sons of God” are, but neither explains why the story was recorded in Genesis. From the context, the line of Seth view explains who these sons of God were and why the story is here. In Exodus 4:22–23, Moses’ audience, Israel, is identified by God as “My son, My first-born.” These sons of God were about to enter the Promised Land, which was populated with people who were not part of the Abrahamic covenant. God warned Israel not to take foreign wives (Deut. 7:3). This would become a recurring problem for Israel. Moses used this story in Genesis 6 to warn Israel not to abandon God’s instruction. God is the one who determines what is good, and Israel was to be on guard against the enticement of the world that would lead them away from the pure worship and dedication to the God of Israel.

In both the angels view and the tyrants view try to explain who the “sons of God” are, but neither explains why the story was recorded in Genesis. From the context, the line of Seth view explains who these sons of God were and why the story is here. In Exodus 4:22–23, Moses’ audience, Israel, is identified by God as “My son, My first-born.” These sons of God were about to enter the Promised Land, which was populated with people who were not part of the Abrahamic covenant. God warned Israel not to take foreign wives (Deut. 7:3). This would become a recurring problem for Israel. Moses used this story in Genesis 6 to warn Israel not to abandon God’s instruction. God is the one who determines what is good, and Israel was to be on guard against the enticement of the world that would lead them away from the pure worship and dedication to the God of Israel.

I do not post this to argue for against but only to try and educate those who are wondering what is being discussed and why.

Thanks that was complete.

I am looking more to the end of the matter or conclusion as the context coming from the previous chapter Genesis 5 the genealogy of the spiritual seed of Christ working in born again sons of God messengers of the gospel How beautiful are their feet shod with the gospel .

Enoch passed on the seed of Christ from Seth they make up two representations . Luke 3 genealogy account as sons of God. The two witnesses. Genesis and Luke.

Luke 3:2838 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

It would appear he called Seth a believer, born again of God .

Not usually spoken of from my experience but how and why the words “daughters of men ”is used to look it must be part of the key .which is usually avoided .

It would seem to come from chapter 5 Seth as son of God lived after he begat Enos as son of God. . . eight hundred and seven years, and begat sons and daughters: natural unconvered mankind In that way we know mankind cannot beget sons of God. That’s a work of Him that we have in these earthen bodies . Be not unevenly yoked the end of the mattter. .

Genisis 5: 4 And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters: And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died. And Seth lived an hundred and five years, and begat Enos: And Seth lived after he begat Enos eight hundred and seven years, and begat sons and daughters:

The dififernce seems clear(1) sons and dauthers or (2) son of God those male and female born again from above

I agree in some ways and others a little differently Like the line of sect a son of God is part .

In the end it was taken away temporally for a reason there were mighty men of faith as sons of God before to include Noah a p representative of the seed and there were giants of faith as God renown after Just as there are today might men moved by God to both will and empower men . In the end of the mater it would seem God was protecting the unseen spiritual seed that Onan poured out and died. that did work in His renown Not to unevenly yoked the fulfillment of the seed is shown in the genealogy in Luke 3

 

[Major]

I won't be too sad when another thread comes to life.
There are a lot of matter-of-fact statements and I don't
think anyone here was alive when it occurred.

The fact is.......there is no one alive today who was around then to verify anything. All we can and should do is go by what the Scriptures actually "say".

 

[Major]

Thanks that was complete.

I am looking more to the end of the matter or conclusion as the context coming from the previous chapter Genesis 5 the genealogy of the spiritual seed of Christ working in born again sons of God messengers of the gospel How beautiful are their feet shod with the gospel .

Enoch passed on the seed of Christ from Seth they make up two representations . Luke 3 genealogy account as sons of God. The two witnesses. Genesis and Luke.

Luke 3:2838 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

It would appear he called Seth a believer, born again of God .

Not usually spoken of from my experience but how and why the words “daughters of men ”is used to look it must be part of the key .which is usually avoided .

It would seem to come from chapter 5 Seth as son of God lived after he begat Enos as son of God. . . eight hundred and seven years, and begat sons and daughters: natural unconvered mankind In that way we know mankind cannot beget sons of God. That’s a work of Him that we have in these earthen bodies . Be not unevenly yoked the end of the mattter. .

Genisis 5: 4 And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters: And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died. And Seth lived an hundred and five years, and begat Enos: And Seth lived after he begat Enos eight hundred and seven years, and begat sons and daughters:

The dififernce seems clear(1) sons and dauthers or (2) son of God those male and female born again from above

I agree in some ways and others a little differently Like the line of sect a son of God is part .

In the end it was taken away temporally for a reason there were mighty men of faith as sons of God before to include Noah a p representative of the seed and there were giants of faith as God renown after Just as there are today might men moved by God to both will and empower men . In the end of the mater it would seem God was protecting the unseen spiritual seed that Onan poured out and died. that did work in His renown Not to unevenly yoked the fulfillment of the seed is shown in the genealogy in Luke 3

I am not really sure what you said.

 

[Nazarene Servant]

The fact is.......there is no one alive today who was around then to verify anything. All we can and should do is go by what the Scriptures actually "say".

I agree. I like what I Corinthians 13 says.

 

[Major]

I agree. I like what I Corinthians 13 says.

1 Corth. says a lot of things. Can I assume you are referring to "love" ?

 

[Major]

Thanks that was complete.

I am looking more to the end of the matter or conclusion as the context coming from the previous chapter Genesis 5 the genealogy of the spiritual seed of Christ working in born again sons of God messengers of the gospel How beautiful are their feet shod with the gospel .

Enoch passed on the seed of Christ from Seth they make up two representations . Luke 3 genealogy account as sons of God. The two witnesses. Genesis and Luke.

Luke 3:2838 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

It would appear he called Seth a believer, born again of God .

Not usually spoken of from my experience but how and why the words “daughters of men ”is used to look it must be part of the key .which is usually avoided .

It would seem to come from chapter 5 Seth as son of God lived after he begat Enos as son of God. . . eight hundred and seven years, and begat sons and daughters: natural unconvered mankind In that way we know mankind cannot beget sons of God. That’s a work of Him that we have in these earthen bodies . Be not unevenly yoked the end of the mattter. .

Genisis 5: 4 And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters: And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died. And Seth lived an hundred and five years, and begat Enos: And Seth lived after he begat Enos eight hundred and seven years, and begat sons and daughters:

The dififernce seems clear(1) sons and dauthers or (2) son of God those male and female born again from above

I agree in some ways and others a little differently Like the line of sect a son of God is part .

In the end it was taken away temporally for a reason there were mighty men of faith as sons of God before to include Noah a p representative of the seed and there were giants of faith as God renown after Just as there are today might men moved by God to both will and empower men . In the end of the mater it would seem God was protecting the unseen spiritual seed that Onan poured out and died. that did work in His renown Not to unevenly yoked the fulfillment of the seed is shown in the genealogy in Luke 3

IF you are trying to say that the "Mighty Men" of Genesis 6:4 were "human men" who had name or better said were well known by all the people, then I agree with you.

The Hebrew word in verse #3 for "mighty Men" is the word..."giborim which means literally......"Warrior."
The same word is used to describe Nimrod in 10:8-10.

The way it is written in the Hebrews is a derogatory sense, contrasted with God giving Abram a good NAME in 12:2.

Now if everyone would carefully read verse #4, you will see that the Bible DOES NOT say that these "Giants" were offspring of marriages.

"There were GIANTS in the earth in those days and then AFTER that the sons of God came unto the daughters of men........................."!
So then by the actual written words, there were no offspring at all. They were already here on the earth.

The word "Giants" is the Hebrew word "Nephilim" and that word literally means......Mighty, or princes.

By the way the same word used here as Nephilim here is used to describe the "Giants" that the spies observed in Canaan went sent in by Moses.

Interesting.........ya thiink!

 

[Major]

Hey VIA...........did we learn something or were you just surprised that a cute lttle bull dog would know stuff like that????

 

[Garee]

IF you are trying to say that the "Mighty Men" of Genesis 6:4 were "human men" who had name or better said were well known by all the people, then I agree with you.

The Hebrew word in verse #3 for "mighty Men" is the word..."giborim which means literally......"Warrior."
The same word is used to describe Nimrod in 10:8-10.

The way it is written in the Hebrews is a derogatory sense, contrasted with God giving Abram a good NAME in 12:2.

Now if everyone would carefully read verse #4, you will see that the Bible DOES NOT say that these "Giants" were offspring of marriages.

"There were GIANTS in the earth in those days and then AFTER that the sons of God came unto the daughters of men........................."!
So then by the actual written words, there were no offspring at all. They were already here on the earth.

The word "Giants" is the Hebrew word "Nephilim" and that word literally means......Mighty, or princes.

By the way the same word used here as Nephilim here is used to describe the "Giants" that the spies observed in Canaan went sent in by Moses.

Interesting.........ya thiink!

Yes interesting. The mighty men of old as God's renown fought against the renown of those who opposed the word of God . Goliath seemed like a grasshopper to David when strengthened by God . Just as some not moved by faith did with Goliath they felt like grasshoppers . Superhero’s against the others as villains a derogatory term as well as one to support depending on which camp.

In a parable in 2 Samuel hiding the gospel meaning again God using David as a mighty man of old. He is in jail and is found wondering in regard to his relationship if he made the right move with God? Just as John the baptist when he sent for words of confirming that he heard the gospel correctly being in doubt..

You could say God had sent David and John a thirst for hearing the gospel. There he uses three mighty men moved by faith to denote the end of the matter with three representing the trinity.

They went in jeopardy of their own spirit life. David realizing the water representing the gospel as if he was drinking in salvation .He poured it out to the lord. It helps us to understand the doctrine of “drinking blood” a metaphor also used in John 6 parable also.

Water or blood is used to represent the unseen spiritul work of the Father and Son .I think the same well where Jesus met the Samarian woman living water the gospel

2 Samuel 23:16And the three mighty men brake through the host of the Philistines, and drew water out of the well of Bethlehem, that was by the gate, and took it, and brought it to David: nevertheless he would not drink thereof, but poured it out unto the Lord. And he said, Be it far from me, O Lord, that I should do this: is not this the blood of the men that went in jeopardy of their lives? therefore he would not drink it. These things did these three mighty men.

 

[Major]

Yes interesting. The mighty men of old as God's renown fought against the renown of those who opposed the word of God . Goliath seemed like a grasshopper to David when strengthened by God . Just as some not moved by faith did with Goliath they felt like grasshoppers . Superhero’s against the others as villains a derogatory term as well as one to support depending on which camp.

In a parable in 2 Samuel hiding the gospel meaning again God using David as a mighty man of old. He is in jail and is found wondering in regard to his relationship if he made the right move with God? Just as John the baptist when he sent for words of confirming that he heard the gospel correctly being in doubt..

You could say God had sent David and John a thirst for hearing the gospel. There he uses three mighty men moved by faith to denote the end of the matter with three representing the trinity.

They went in jeopardy of their own spirit life. David realizing the water representing the gospel as if he was drinking in salvation .He poured it out to the lord. It helps us to understand the doctrine of “drinking blood” a metaphor also used in John 6 parable also.

Water or blood is used to represent the unseen spiritul work of the Father and Son .I think the same well where Jesus met the Samarian woman living water the gospel

2 Samuel 23:16And the three mighty men brake through the host of the Philistines, and drew water out of the well of Bethlehem, that was by the gate, and took it, and brought it to David: nevertheless he would not drink thereof, but poured it out unto the Lord. And he said, Be it far from me, O Lord, that I should do this: is not this the blood of the men that went in jeopardy of their lives? therefore he would not drink it. These things did these three mighty men.

As usual, I am not real certain what you are saying. However I will say that the phrase "nevertheless he would not drink thereof;"......
because, say they who take these words in a spiritual sense, it was not this water, but spiritual water, he desired:, however is that actually the case------ as we can see but reason is given in 2 Samuel 23:17..............

2 Samuel 23:17 ..........
"Far be it from me, LORD, to do this!" he said. "Is it not the blood of men who went at the risk of their lives?" And David would not drink it. Such were the exploits of the three mighty warriors."

"but poured it out unto the Lord...... as a libation (OFFERING) to Him, it being rather blood than water, being fetched at the hazard of men's lives, and therefore more fit to be offered as a sacrifice to God than to be drank by him; and this he might do in thankfulness to God for preserving the lives of the men. Dr. Joel Gersom, Hebrew Scholar, thinks it was now the feast of tabernacles, which was the feast of ingathering the fruits of the earth, when great quantities of water were drawn and poured out at the altar, which was done to obtain the blessing of the former rain
Also see and read Source: Dr. J. Gill on John 7:37 and Dr. Albert Barnes on John 7:38.