Sons of God

[veteran]

The difference between them and me is that I do "believe on Christ Jesus as The Saviour" and very definately do "heed God's Holy Writ as Truth." The difference between you and me, apparently, is that I believe that God gives us, and expects us to use, a sound mind that is able to think rationally to evaluate all evidence, and avoid logical fallacies.

Since when is departing from what God's Word declares on the matter using "a sound mind"?

There are many, many Scripture events written in God's Word that are hard understandings for the worldy reasonings of man. It's because it cannot be understood without guidance by The Holy Spirit, seeing how God's Word was given by The Holy Spirit, and not by university professors.

But even with the case of Genesis 6 in relation to other relevant Scripture about the giants, it's not hard to understand, IF... the Scripture is truly heeded as written. The amount of relevant Bible Scripture about the giants is plentiful, proposing that one who reads it either believes it as written, or they believe something else which is NOT... written. This is why those who refuse to heed it as written instead have to resort to name-calling, trivialities with words, etc., while they have done absolutely nothing... to disprove the written Scripture.

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

Since when is departing from what God's Word declares on the matter using "a sound mind"?

God's word? Can you please explain what that means? Is a mistranslation God's word, or do you believe the bible is perfect. Do you even know what the bible is? Is the Masoretic Text always right? Is the LXX never right? The apostles relied on the LXX heavily. Why are you so afraid of it? (Note to other forum readers: this is tying in with another ongoing discussion between us).

 

[Angelina]

God's word? Can you please explain what that means? Is a mistranslation God's word, or do you believe the bible is perfect. Do you even know what the bible is? Is the Masoretic Text always right? Is the LXX never right? The apostles relied on the LXX heavily. Why are you so afraid of it? (Note to other forum readers: this is tying in with another ongoing discussion between us)

The LXX [Septuagint - Greek translation of the Hebrew bible] uses the word "angels" when referring to sons of God [bene elohim] why do you refute the word for the sake of your belief? :huh:

What bible do you believe is the correct translation HRFTD?

Shalom!!!

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

What bible do you believe is the correct translation HRFTD?

Between the Masoretic Text and the LXX? Depends on the verse. Sometimes one is right, and the other wrong, and vice versa.

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

Remember that fruit doesn't fall far from the tree. The witness that the nephilim are hybrid offspring of fallen angels and women isn't found in the bible, but that idea is central to ancient pagan religions. In other words, it's a pagan idea. Caveat emptor.

 

[Angelina]

The witness that the nephilim are hybrid offspring of fallen angels and women isn't found in the bible, but that idea is central to many pagan religions. Caveat emptor.

It is found in the Septuagint and other commonly used bibles that you like to refer to, as coming from the "Masoretic Text".

Once again I ask - what bible do you believe is the correct translation and what standard of measure are you using, when determining which version is correct, [between the - LXX and the Masoretic Text??? :huh:

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

Once again I ask - what bible do you believe is the correct translation and what standard of measure are you using, when determining which version is correct, [between the - LXX and the Masoretic Text??? :huh:

The standard of measure used depends on various things. If the NT references an OT verse that is found in the LXX, but not the MT, I go with the LXX: and vice versa. If the historical and other evidence clearly shows that one version is correct and the other bogus, I go with the former. And then there is the witness of the holy spirit who has the final say. In this particular instance the phrase "sons of God" only appears in Genesis 6 in the LXX. The phrase "Angels of God" is used in Job in the LXX, and actually makes much more sense than "sons of God" used in the MT. That coupled with the obvious pagan and serpent seed doctrine characteristics of the nephillim doctrine, causes me to choose the LXX reading over the MT.

 

[SummaScriptura]

I don't think the 'sons of God' are angelic beings. There is absolutely nothing in scripture to suggest that angels can reproduce, or that they would eve want to.
I think the more correct interpretation here is that "sons of God" are men who followed God, and that the 'daughters of men' are women who are pagan. It's not the first time that men who claim to be Christian have been led astray by beautiful but unholy women!

No one commenting on this passage before 70 AD thought anything other than that the sons of God in Gen. 6:1-4 were angels.

 

[SummaScriptura]

Modern interpretations of Genesis 6:1-4, abound. One of the most common explanations is that the term “sons of God” in the passage refers to the righteous family line descending from the patriarch Seth. “The daughters of man”, in the passage is then understood to be women who were of an unbelieving family line, perhaps that of Cain. In this view the sin of the sons of God is seen as intermarriage of God’s people with unbelievers, leading to a spiritual decline among humanity.

This view, however, did not become popular until the Book of Enoch began to be discounted after 70 AD, first by Jews, then by Christians.

Before the time of Christ, when the Jews who wrote and preserved the Old Testament Scriptures were the only interpreters of those Scriptures the commonly held interpretation of Genesis 6:1-4, was as follows… the angels, the heavenly sons of God, also known as Watchers, lusted after the daughters of mankind and conspired to break God's law; they left their assigned abode in heaven, to take human wives and have children. They defiled themselves by sexual relations with women in order to beget children who turned out to be gigantic and monstrous. This was the unified Jewish understanding from the period of 2nd-Temple Judaism and earlier.

One is stricken with the sheer lack of controversy among ancient Jewish writers on this point. In fact, I have not yet found an example from the writings of the period of 2nd-Temple Judaism in which some writer disagrees with the Watcher/Nephilim saga, though many controversies can be seen concerning other matters. In chapter 11, we will produce a list of the passages in ancient Jewish literature which touch on this subject.

Copyright © 2006-2012, R.I. Burns All rights reserved