The "Sons of God" issue has been settled. Did you get the memo?

[Buckethead Baptist]

I don't think that the interpretation of Genesis 6:1-4 is too difficult if you look at the context.

I suggest that the 'sons' of God are the male line of Seth, and the 'daughters of men' are the female line of Cain. There was inter-marrying between the two families with the result that the knowledge of God and His righteous laws was lost.

Or more prosaically, 'Take heed to yourself, lest you make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land where you are going, lest it be a snare in your midst......and you take of [their] daughters for your sons.........' (Exodus 34:12, 16).
And
'Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers................etc.' (2 Corinthians 6:14-18).

It is surely the simplest and most obvious one.

This scripture does not lend itself to an Occam's Razor style of interpretation for open debate. I'm just going to point you back to the book and just say that the Sethite view has always had scriptural problems... (because it was never the correct interpretation mainly)

Heiser's work for all intents puts a fork in the Sethite view... there's just no historical backup for it.... It's mostly based on wishful thinking and a denial of the Supernatural background of the events of Genesis 6. That's why he produced a laymen's version:

Your Exodus 34 reference actually supports Heiser's work through his highlight of Deuteronomy 32:8-9 (ESV) as a more proper World-view of Scripture.

Contextually... the 2nd Corinthians reference does not fit properly for your argument... but since its the only New Testament reference that someone with a Sethite view can use to cram a square peg into a round hole... I understand why you've deployed it.

Thanks though.

BB

 

[Buckethead Baptist]

... And it is true I do not understand a lot of the Bible even though I've been studying it for over 50 years... But studying the Bible I have also studied others who also studied scripture and lead many away with the idea they had found something new that no one else has ever found... Btw there have been many false beliefs started this way and many blind shepherds leading blind sheep and starting there false cults...

Like Calvinism?

 

[Buckethead Baptist]

To Darrell

My comments in Blue

We know that what takes place is something not pleasing to God, so I would just suggest the concept of ruling men taking from among the people women at their whim.

Yeah... and while members of the Divine Council are not men... I would think that Yahweh God would be exceptionally upset with it enough to destroy the offspring.

Normal ruling men taking women at their whim does not provoke God into acts of global judgement.​

It is Man, not Angels, with whom God is not pleased. God is Just so it makes little sense to find God exacting penalty for something that is the result of Angels' actions. The resulting offspring also become notable.

It also seems as though the "giants" precede the coming in of the sons of God unto the daughters of men. (Incorrect)

We see the concept of "sons of God" here...

Uhhhmmmm... Exactly... you are very correct. In fact this is the section of scripture that inspired Heiser to undertake this work.

However... you may want to examine it closer in the ESV (because I don't know Hebrew):

Basically... these are the same guys of Genesis 6.​

Psalm 82
King James Version (KJV)

1 God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods.

2 How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked? Selah.

3 Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy.

4 Deliver the poor and needy: rid them out of the hand of the wicked.

5 They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course.

6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.

7 But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.

8 Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations.

the ESV
1 God has taken his place in the divine council;
in the midst of the gods he holds judgment:

2 “How long will you judge unjustly
and show partiality to the wicked? Selah

3 Give justice to the weak and the fatherless;
maintain the right of the afflicted and the destitute.

4 Rescue the weak and the needy;
deliver them from the hand of the wicked.”

5 They have neither knowledge nor understanding,
they walk about in darkness;
all the foundations of the earth are shaken.

6 I said, “You are gods,
sons of the Most High, all of you;

7 nevertheless, like men you shall die,
and fall like any prince.”[fn]

8 Arise, O God, judge the earth;
for you shall inherit all the nations!​

The instruction pertains to those in ruler-ship over the people, and a demand for just ruler-ship. The "Fatherhood" of GOd in relation to man, though not to be equated with the Fatherhood of New Covenant relationship, can be sen in relation to both all people of the world at times as well as to Israel. {Sorry...no offense, but this is all made up blather based on someone's opinion... its not based on what the verses actually say.}

So my own view would be that we have those in place of ruler-ship taking advantage of their power and basically violating God's will in regards to how those in positions of leadership are to rule. It is not unusual that their descendants would be mighty men, men of renown.


God bless.

Thanks Darrell for your response... and I hope I'm not coming across too harshly... it's just I have no reason to debate the "Sethite" view anymore...

Really... I just want to see how the Divine Council understanding will begin to affect thought ...

BB

 

[Buckethead Baptist]

So, if we believe the resurrection we must also believe every other claim of the supernatural.

When the bible says it.... yes.

 

[Buckethead Baptist]

I love to see that enlarged upon - assertions are easy to make - this one is impossible to back up and support either from Calvin's own works or from the works of other Calvinists - I think you will find that it is reformed theology that effects the exegesis of this passage (our demand for consistency and comparing scripture to scripture) rather then the exegesis of this passage that effects reformed thought.

Actually... I am asserting that "reformed thought" found the proper interpretation of Genesis 6:1-4 to be inconvenient to their narrative of molesting scripture to produce the bible as a grand morality play.

You can actually see it played out in the Sunday School literature that they produce for the Southern Baptists...

or... should I say NOT see it... because its the scripture AND subject they decided to leave out in the Gospel Project.

Well... the assertion that Calvinists have devalued the Supernatural parts of the bible are rather well supported with a little bit of digging...

Basically the roots the "Sethite" View can be traced to appearing JUST BEFORE Augustine... whom advocated it for certain reasons pertaining to the popular culture of the day regarding Platonic thought...

Calvin drew heavily from Augustine as his formative thought on these matters.

And that brings us to the reformists of today... (See authors of "The Gospel Project")

 

[Buckethead Baptist]

No, but what is a problem is when we go outside the teaching of the scriptures themselves!

That's a nonsense argument made up by the intellectually depleted that originates from a malady of limited thinking, or WORSE... willful malevolence used to scare the weak minded to buckle under veiled accusations.

Which one are you using?

 

[Buckethead Baptist]

That would be implying that I was not saved, correct? as he teaches all who are saved of God!

even Bucketheads. So don't give up hope. I would never denigrate someone's Salvation... that would be intruding upon the domain of the Creator God.

 

[Buckethead Baptist]

I agree with what you said Brother Martin and it make perfect sense to me... Some try to wrest scripture to their own understanding and try to prove something is there that isn't... Let scripture interpret scripture as it always does and not us delve in speculation and fables... And Brother Martin... Elvis has not left the building... Brother Glen

I was attending Vacation Bible School at a Church of Christ (visitor of a friend) on Elvis Presley Boulevard on April 16, 1977...

I assure you ... Elvis has left more than just the building.​

 

[tyndale1946]

I was attending Vacation Bible School at a Church of Christ (visitor of a friend) on Elvis Presley Boulevard on April 16, 1977...

I assure you ... Elvis has left more than just the building.​

According to what Brother Martin posted he has not... Wait a minute there is a scripture for that... He being dead yet speaketh... We all have to leave our building someday but will our words remain?... Only time will tell... Elvis' has so far... Brother Glen

'A hard-headed woman; a soft-hearted man--
They've been the cause of trouble ever since the world began!'

 

[reformed_baptist]

Firstly, let me note that this isn't an answer to the question I posed. I asked:

How does the author link these texts exegetically to Gen 6:1-4?

And you responded with the following.

I'm not even sure how you're having a contextual blind spot with the 2nd Peter reference. The Jude reference is pretty well documented as the belief and understanding of any 1st Century Jew as to pointing to Genesis 6:1-4. There is no other event listed in the Torah that it could possibly be about. There's only one.

In regards to this answer I note that it is (1) your answer, nor the authors (2) utterly devoid of any attempt at exegesis - which is telling, as I am sure if the link could made through scripture itself this response would not have been necessary.

Now, to analyse the response in sentence by sentence.

You said:

I'm not even sure how you're having a contextual blind spot with the 2nd Peter reference.

You have suggested I have a 'contextual blindspot' which, by itself is a meaningless assessment of my response - let's look at the text (have you noticed that I am prepared to post it for analysis?)

2 Peter 2:4 For if God did not spare the angels who sinned, but cast them down to hell and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved for judgment... (NKJ)

Now, parsing the verse we not that Peter is asserting the following:

1) There were angles that sinned
2) God did not spare these angels
3) rather he:
(a) cast them into hell
(b) delivered them into chains of darkness
4) where they reserved for the final judgement.

What Peter does not say is when these things happened, indeed the only clue we have is that is seems from v5 and v6 that Peter is speaking in chronological order - hence it logically follows that this verse refers to events prior to the flood. However, it is huge leap to go from that conclusion and arrive at Gen 6:1-4.

Indeed as I look at 2 Pet 2:4 I see a tremendous emphasis on the judgement these angles received however when I turn to Gen 6 I don't read of any judgement falling on Angels, rather the judgement falls on 'men' (Hb אָדָ֤ם )

So again I ask for the exegetical link.

Next you said:

The Jude reference is pretty well documented as the belief and understanding of any 1st Century Jew as to pointing to Genesis 6:1-4.

And of course you can provided properly cited quotations to support that assertion?

Now, even if you could, what makes you think 1st Century Jewish opinions are to be considered sound - this is the generation that didn't recognized their messiah who the whole of the OT spoke about - are we really supposed to put a lot of weight in their often fanciful interpretations of the Old Testament?

The reality is the Jude 6 is even harder to link to Gen 6:1-4 then 2 pet 2:4

Jude 1:6 And the angels who did not keep their proper domain, but left their own abode, He has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of the great day;

Now Jude jumps straight onto Sodom and Gomorrah - he doesn't even provide the Noah reference.

So again, the same question, please provide the exegetical link that ties this verse back to gen 6:1-4

Next you said:

There is no other event listed in the Torah that it could possibly be about. There's only one.

Why does this have to be an event listed in the torah? Why can't Peter and Jude be referring to something that isn't mentioned specifically (or in detail) in the torah? (By which I assume you mean the first five books of the bible - for the word is rather flexible in meaning).

Maybe they refer to something that happened prior to Gen 3?

Maybe they refer to something that is mentioned elsewhere in scripture

In short your restrictive scope that allow for the search of evidence speaks more to bias then actually thought

 

[tyndale1946]

Like Calvinism?

I can assure you talk to my other brethren on here and we are definitely not Calvinists... Although some think we are... Brother Glen

 

[reformed_baptist]

Actually... I am asserting that "reformed thought" found the proper interpretation of Genesis 6:1-4 to be inconvenient to their narrative of molesting scripture to produce the bible as a grand morality play.

Yet the reformed believer is the only one in this discussion who seems able to interact with the text of scripture rather then rely on assertion and vague reference to 1st Century Jewish thought (you know the one who didn't recognise their messiah)

You can actually see it played out in the Sunday School literature that they produce for the Southern Baptists...

or... should I say NOT see it... because its the scripture AND subject they decided to leave out in the Gospel Project.

Firstly, I have heard nothing of the gospel project and know nothing of the authors, but a quick perusal of the website doesn't tell me this is distinctly Calvinist material and the fact that I know nothing of this resource also tend to undermine your apparent assertion that this is the teaching resource all Calvinists rely on for our indoctrination and brainwashing

Well... the assertion that Calvinists have devalued the Supernatural parts of the bible are rather well supported with a little bit of digging...

If that is the case you won't have any problem supporting that assertion with some evidence provided from reformed sources (not second hand assertions).

Of course it is an utter nonsense to suggest that the ones who emphasize the divine work in salvation are downplaying the supernatural aspects of scripture - the reality is we rely upon them for the central aspects of our teaching.

Basically the roots the "Sethite" View can be traced to appearing JUST BEFORE Augustine... whom advocated it for certain reasons pertaining to the popular culture of the day regarding Platonic thought...

Again, I am sure you won't have any trouble bringing up properly cited evidence that supports your assertion.

Calvin drew heavily from Augustine as his formative thought on these matters.

Calvin drew heavily on all the ECF - all that testifies to is the rich christian heritage he lent upon - he wasn't one for novelties.

And that brings us to the reformists of today... (See authors of "The Gospel Project")

And what the fact that you don't even give us the proper label, but instead refer to 'reformists' suggest about your understanding of these issues. I said in my previous post that I would like to see how you interact with Calvinists and I have to ask - is this it? Do you have meaningful and concrete for me to get my teeth into or is it all just a hodgepodge of assertion, misinformation and straw-men arguments based in hearsay?[/quote][/quote]

 

[reformed_baptist]

If you believe so and yet do not think nothing in scripture suggest to you that the sin of the angels had anything to do with what I suggested, then when do you think the sin of the angels took place and what effect did that sin have upon their environment whatever that might have been?

Firstly, I stated I believed that the order of the 3 events Peter refers to 2 Pet 2:4-6 are presented in chronological order.

Then I asserted that I don't see any biblical evidence to support that Genesis 1:2 which says The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. (NKJ) has anything to do the the events Peter details in 2 Pet 2:4

Your question that you pose, seems to rely on the same logic as those who suggest this is a reference to Gen 6:1-4 - ie, it must be this because it can't be any other.

When we look at 2 pet 2:4 we read:

2 Peter 2:4 For if God did not spare the angels who sinned, but cast them down to hell and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved for judgment; (NKJ)

Now, I wonder where those angels were before they were cast out? Is there any implication that they were on this earth?

I would say not - now, I don't know what impact their sin had on their environment because I am not told exactly what effect it had, indeed I am not told what environment they were in. i suspect it was a spiritual realm (Eph 6:12)

If sin results in death, see James 1, then what death did the sin of the angels cause? Could their sin have caused the death of a planet, the earth was without form and void and darkness was upon the face of the deep. Period................And the curtain falls and time passes.................

And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

I assume you are referring to James 1:15?

I wonder if maybe your question would be answered but looking at what death is? Adam and Eve died the day they ate the fruit (yet physically they lived on for hundreds of years) - death is separation from God - and so Peter tells us who suffered death (sepertaion from God) - the angels

When do you think the sin of the angels took place relative to the worldwide flood?

Sometime before Gen 3, but we cannot be more specific then that! However, if pushed I would say sometime after God spoke the words recorded in Gen 1:31. It seems strange to me that God would call all of his creation as being very good if there were some angels (created beings) that had fallen.

You did answer, Yes, I believe so.

I don't know what that means.[/QUOTE]

 

[Buckethead Baptist]

Firstly, let me note that this isn't an answer to the question I posed. I asked:



And you responded with the following.



In regards to this answer I note that it is (1) your answer,
Yes... my Answer.


nor the authors (2) utterly devoid of any attempt at exegesis - which is telling, as I am sure if the link could made through scripture itself this response would not have been necessary.

The only thing it "tells"... is that I think you are being facetious.

Now, to analyse the response in sentence by sentence.

And of course you can provided properly cited quotations to support that assertion?

Maybe they refer to something that happened prior to Gen 3?

Maybe they refer to something that is mentioned elsewhere in scripture

In short your restrictive scope that allow for the search of evidence speaks more to bias then actually thought

OK... after all that I know you ARE being facetious.

And since you are one of those... it's clear to me that my time is better spent with people willing to learn instead of allotting more of that precious resource in this thread.

Have a nice day.

 

[Buckethead Baptist]

Do you have meaningful and concrete for me to get my teeth into or is it all just a hodgepodge of assertion, misinformation and straw-men arguments based in hearsay?

[/quote][/QUOTE]

Seems to me that you're having trouble getting testimony past your teeth.... and expelling a lot of waste instead.

 

[Buckethead Baptist]

Are you saying that the ONLY way tosee that is it meaning fallen angels?

No... I didn't say that...

You can include any of these...

Members of:
The Divine Council
The Heavenly Host
The Powers
The Principalities

Whether they be Angelic... or Spiritual "Other"... I would say they qualify.

 

[Buckethead Baptist]

I can assure you talk to my other brethren on here and we are definitely not Calvinists... Although some think we are... Brother Glen

I felt that one was tee'd up for me... couldn't resist.

 

[reformed_baptist]

Seems to me that you're having trouble getting testimony past your teeth.... and expelling a lot of waste instead.

If I'm not worth the effort as you assert in post 54, why have you again responded to me?

It seems to me that all my requests for you to back up you your assertions with evidence have been entirely fair. It is also clear that of the two of us I am the only one who has made any attempt to interact with the texts of scripture in question.

And your responses, especially these last two, do more for my cause then anything i could possibly write as they demonstrate that all you have to counter sound exegesis and reasonable requests is bluster and insults - any reasoning reader will see exactly what is going on here, so my sincere thanks for making this so easy for me.

 

[Buckethead Baptist]

And your responses, especially these last two, do more for my cause then anything i could possibly write as they demonstrate that all you have to counter sound exegesis and reasonable requests is bluster and insults - any reasoning reader will see exactly what is going on here, so my sincere thanks for making this so easy for me.

Dude... see the original post.

You have several in depth questions... you have an attitude ... BUY the book.

I'm not going to expound on all your nits... BUY the book.

The Unseen Realm: Recovering the Supernatural Worldview of the Bible

 

[reformed_baptist]

Dude... see the original post.

It seems I'm still worth replying to - or insulting - when not drop the childish behaviour!

You have several in depth questions... you have an attitude ... BUY the book.

I wonder if we took a poll how many would agree with you that I am the one exhibiting 'an attitude' - the simple truth is I have engaged with the text of scripture and I have tried to engage with you.

I'm not going to expound on all your nits... BUY the book.

The Unseen Realm: Recovering the Supernatural Worldview of the Bible[/QUOTE]

As far as I am aware 'nits' are the eggs laid by head lice, maybe though this is a reference to 'nitpicking' which refers to fussy or pedantic fault-finding - if that is the case and my posts have indeed been fussy and pedantic fault finding you won't have trouble demonstrating that I am sure. The truth is, there is no need to be pedantic, one could drive a truck through the gaps in your thinking as demonstrated on this thread. You have made many bold assertions in this thread and you haven't backed up a single one with any evidence.

A 'buy the book' is a classic cop out!

So once again, thanks for making my task so easy.