Genesis 6

B.J. Halo,

I didn't ignore anything, but believe the Cain/Seth view is flawed. I almost can't believe what you wrote! Beating a dead horse? There are a dozen other discussions on this board that have also been fully discussed! Are they beating a dead horse? Yes I did miss this topic from the past, does that mean we should never discuss it again? One reason to discuss this is because it is God's truth like any other discussion on this board - that that has been hashed out over and over.

Oh Well so be it.

Chet

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chet: Oh Well so be it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Amen!

 

&gt;&gt;Do you think it is a bad idea to dig so deep?&gt;&gt;

No.

 

That is all you have to say? This disturbs
me greatly B.J. This board was supposed to be different.

 

Folks, you may debate as long as you wish, there are no restrictions to that effect here on BaptistBoard.com. I only conveyed my own observations on the matter, and the fact that you ignored the answers given and went on your merry old ways in a different tangent! It wasn't a personal attack or a threat that I will delete your comments (of which I can, but only if abusive languages are being used and people trample on the furniture). It was only my humble opinion. So, carry on!

 

Yes indeed. No problem here.

 

B.J.

Your post probably upset me more than any post did since I been here. I even brought my wife in here to read this to make sure I was not reading you wrong, but if I was then I am sorry. I guess I don't understand your observations when all I did was give you the reasons why I believe as I do. Purhaps it is a touchy subject for you?I did address Thomas Cassidy and John Wells argument, which proves why I did not go on a tangent. I still don't fully understand. Especially in light of my last paragraph!

My wife and I have always enjoyed your post, we can't help but notice how much of a wonderful gentlemen you are and more than nice. It just struck me as odd to read your post.

G.B.MACsaid: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Sorry this came out this way. I was very happy to find this site now Iam not so sure.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am also sorry. But I pray that you take this isolated incident and forget about it. There have been some great discussions on this board. There are some great people here
including all those who have participated on this discussion. They are very educated on
the Bible. I have learned things here, especially in the KJV forum. And hey, your right on the sons of God in Gen. 6 so I am sure you will be able to contribute as well.

with love,

Chet

[ September 03, 2001: Message edited by: Chet ]

 

Going back to the snake thing for a minute here...

If Genesis 3:14-15 is not talking about a snake, then what who is God cursing? What people crawl on their bellies and eat dust?

 

And the LORD God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this, Cursed are you more than all cattle, And more than every beast of the field; On your belly shall you go, And dust shall you eat All the days of your life; And I will put enmity Between you and the woman, And between your seed and her seed; He shall bruise you on the head, And you shall bruise him on the heel." (Gen 3:14-15 NASB)

We have no idea what a "serpent" looked like before God cursed Satan for appearing as one, and made the serpent a crawling creature. Common sense would speak to us that it was beautiful. It certainly didn't frighten Eve the way a snake does today. In fact it must have intrigued her in order to captivate her attention.

Think about this, she didn't think it odd to have a conversation with this serpent! If that last rattle snake I saw had said, "Hey, how you doing?" I would have been mowing down trees getting out of there! "On your belly shall you go" indicates that previously, on his belly he didn't go! After the curse, the serpent became a snake.

 

Thank you Chet for your kind words. I do apologize if I left the impression that you cannot discuss the subject to your satisfaction - on the contrary. However, while you are looking at matters laterally, I try to look at them vertically. For as you may know, I have read a great many posts on this board and have discovered many recurring ones. When a subject has been discussed to exhaustion, it aches me to see folks going through the same struggle to make a point.

In this fashion G.B.MAC.'s opening statement got my attention, when he said:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>In Gen 6 Do we see angels having relations with women? Sons of God = angels Daugters of man - man = Adam. Daugters of Adam. The offspring where Giants in size and wickedness. What about all this?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I admire those members and Moderators alike who come up with new and challenging titles for a topic. Appreciate also those who have sharp memories and trace back a subject to it's original post and submit the link where it can be found on the board, so that they would save time and effort on the part of those engaging in a similar discussions.

As I was following the posts on the same thread, I discovered the following statement:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chet: Why I believe the evidence points toward Sons of God being Angels.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Since it is evident from the Bible to me that angels can not procreate, Dr. Cassidy's comment was right on target. This is an acceptable exegesis in fundamental Baptist circles. And the reaction to his post was also typical and expected - for we have seen it take place with different posters but the same route. Perhaps that is what triggered my reaction and posted my observation. Not knowing the background to the whole story, I can see why you may have reacted in shock. Again, I do apologize, and I will try to look up that thread in the old forgotten and buried areas of the BB. Meanwhile you just go on and be free to add your Bible based views to this thread. But please do not take it the wrong way if you are going to be challenged for your views. God bless you and your wife!

 

Boy that's a lot of hypothetical assumption on your part G.B.MAC. Let's see if we can untangle this puzzle in order to see a clearer picture. I am sorry but I cannot find the old thread dealing with the same subject, but if I am not mistaken it was Dr. Cassidy who was dealing with this issue very effectively. I will try to give back some of the highlights of his exegesis. But if I fail, please don’t blame him.

Let’s take angels first. Jesus dispersed all speculation about their sexuality when He said: “For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.” So, according to Jesus, angels cannot procreate, hence Genesis 6 has to be put into a different category. For the expression “the sons of God” does not and cannot mean angels. Sorry.

Now if the expression “sons of God” has a spiritual connotation, then we have a better understanding of the whole thing. For men were created in the image of God, and since God is a Spirit, His creatures have His Spirit dwelling in them. We see a curious parallel to that effect in the statement of Jesus to the Pharisees. The Pharisees insisted that Abraham was their father (John 6:39), but when Jesus refuted their claim they replied, “We be not borne of fornication; we have one father, even God.” (John 6:41) To which Jesus replied: “Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do.” (John 6:44a) So you see, Genesis 6 has to be understood under this light. The writer of the Bible was referring indeed to the descendents of sinful Cain, the daughters of men, and the righteous descendents of Seth, the sons of God.

Since Job 1:6 was introduced to this picture, where the sons of God presented themselves to God, it is fair that we have an honorable mention of that verse (including Job 2:2). The explanation is again simple, angels are spirit beings, therefore they were created in the image of God. So, when the Bible call them the sons of God, it does to them justice. Hope this will enlighten you about the place where I stand on the Genesis 6 issue. Thanks for your post!

 

A big thumbs up to Dr. Griffen. I went for years believing in the Godly line of Seth and the sinful line of Cain theory of Genesis
6. Then I studied it for myself. If it were Godly and ungodly humans intermingling, then why did God destroy the whole earth? Why are
we not destroyed ourselves today? It was more than just bad people intermarrying with good people. It was a satanicly induced plot to wipe out the human race, but, PRAISE THE LORD, "NOAH FOUND GRACE IN THE EYES OF THE LORD"

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If it were Godly and ungodly humans intermingling, then why did God destroy the whole earth?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Becuase every imagination of their heart was only evil continually.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Why are we not destroyed ourselves today?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Because God made a covenant with Noah that he would not destroy the earth again in that way. 2 Peter 3 makes it clear that a similar judgment is coming (though not with water) which will not be the result of some supposed (yet undefined) spiritual/physical being procreation. If pure wickedness brings it the last time, then why does it take some mystical spiritual/physical procreation to bring it the first time?

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by david reed:
If it were Godly and ungodly humans intermingling, then why did God destroy the whole earth? Why are we not destroyed ourselves today?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>1. The reason is simple. He destroyed the whole earth because ALL of mankind were guilty of this breakdown in separation. Only Noah and his family repented of this greivous sin and found Grace in the sight of God.

2. Today, we live in an age of grace, and God has promised never to so destroy the earth again, and God keeps His promises.

 

Dear G.B.MAC., I believe that the topic has been covered. I am aware of the various translations, and my post still stand. However, if you'd like to pursue this angle further, would you like to substantiate your views with Scriptures as I did mine above?