Search results

if it helps-here is a link to the article i used when footnoting that point---its now online--start at p 325 [p 6 of pdf] & read to at least p 331--it will at least give the evidence of the Hebrew being limited to 'human class' women--[a point modern Sethite supporters have picked up on causing...

I love how your thinking so deeply about this---so let me word it this way--could you take this proposal & convince me that it disproves the angelic idea--probably not--but if you took this idea & developed it--you could certainly bring together a theory that would have at least some biblical...

T-cass--while i have read & respected other post I've seen of yours on the BB--your statement here really gives NO evidence what so ever to support your view--you basically just used a lot of words [with no substance] to say Gen 4 & 5 give genealogies & Seth was a godly man [which does not prove...

For me personally--the point you bring up-- its why the 'judges/rulers' view is 2nd on my list of possible interpretations of Gen 6--I even once considered if it could be a possible 'double reference'- ie the angelic beings being the judges/rulers--but the text is to vague to push it that...

Rev--not to get to much into this- [b/c the thread itself seems to be getting a little personal]--but I agree with the 'sons of God' translation of Duet 32:8--& if this is correct--then it would be referring to 'angelic' or 'divine beings' [most likely a divine council reference- after the Tower...

And yes--only the codex Alexandrius has 'angels' most other LXX copies have 'hioi tou theou'='sons of God'

correct

if you can find anything by George W E Nickelsburg on 1 Enoch--it will be very helpful for the development of 1 enoch--he has a few articles & 1 big commentary on the text

before I say anything else--remember I am all in on the angelic interpretation of Gen 6--& it pains me to even give help to a theory I wholeheartedly disagree with--& Josephus clearly affirms the early understanding of the angelic view--but in Antiq of Jews chpt 2:3--after he summarizes Adam...

just checked my thesis--the source I have footnoted there is --Philip Alexander, 'The Targumim & Early Exegesis of 'Sons of God' in Genesis 6," Journal of Jewish Studies 23, no. 1 (1972): 61--if that helps any

Not any pre-NT evidence for any view other then angelic of Gen 6--the 1st historical recorded of anything other does not come until the late 2nd century AD, when Rabbi Simeon b. Yohai proposed a human ‘nobles’ interpretation. That being said--there is one version of Jasher that seems to suggest...

i briefly mentioned this in an earlier post--but considering Jude describes 'chained angels' in v 6--then quotes 1 Enoch just a few sentences later [v 14-15]---certainly favors some kind of reference to the 'angelic interpretation of Gen 6' in his letter. But the 1 Enoch [3rd century BC]...

[ i agree with you brother--i felt bad how i worded that to him--[felt like it was to provoking sounding]--so i thought it'd be best to change how I worded it--just an issue the Lord's been working on me on lately--but yes--i wholeheartedly agree with the fallen angels view of Gen 6

mr "CONTEXT' man--Me and you had this debate several years ago --& I answered all of your responses then [& actually in all my previous responses tonight as well]--And yes--i agree with you-- the context of Gen 6 is about 'man'--& angels are secondary --[listen to my youtube talk link]-but that...

although I'm very aware of the '2nd wave theory' & the Numb 13 use of the Nephilim term--i personally think the angelic/human women incident was limited to the pre-flood world--with Numb 13 being language comparison & not literal [speaking in hyperbole to make a point of their size]--i'm not...

LOL--i'll just post some more of the basic outline i give out when teaching on this--it covers all the questions you asked--& like i said i know the angelic interpretation is difficult--so if its not for you--no problem--but the info is always interesting to consider--God bless-- Common...

Jon C--I actually do agree with one statement you made---'that Gen 6 is about the wickedness of man'--totally agree---i deal with that in a talk i gave about 5 years ago--I'll give the link below--but I wanted you to know--we do agree there--

Well aware of all the works mentioned---[& you forgot Matthews NAC]--& while all of these are credible-- most are either outdated or do not give the detail needed to the debate---here is an outline I wrote for my thesis on this topic-- Who are the “daughters of man”? Human woman (no family...

'Sons of God' in Gen 6=Angels--either 'fallen' or falling in this act. Basically every major modern commentary on 2 Peter & Jude have no question that 2 Pet 2:4 & Jude 6 refers to the Angelic interpretation of Gen 6 {NAC; BECNT; Pillar; NIVAC; WBC; ect]--& the original language; history of...

:laugh: I knew you had a sense of humor! that was hilarious! :thumbsup: