Sons of God

[paidagogos]

What's the difference?

What is the significance between the "sons of God" and "daughters of men" in Genesis 6:2? The Hebrew terms are Nb Myhla (ben 'elohiym) tb Mda (bath 'adam). Literally, the daughters of men can be thought of as the daughters of Adam. Where are the sons of Adam?

Also, the strange flesh (eteroV sarx - heteros sarx) in Jude 1:7 is literally "a different kind of flesh." Perhaps the Sodomites did have sexual relationships with angels too.

The truth is that we cannot say for certain that Genesis 6:2 and Jude 1:7 do not refer to angels and we cannot say without a doubt that these passages do refer to angels. The final word--it's a moot point.

Although I cannot authoritatively declare one way or the other, I do know that those who pontificate absolute declarations on either side are simply blowing smoke and demonstrating their own ignorance. What do I care for self-important opinions? And what is the value of eleven pages of speculation?

 

[webdog]

Strange flesh can be anything...even color.

 

[paidagogos]

I can answer that by angels aren't still reproducing with daughters of men, or would you say women in genearl are uglier than then?

Could be but it is not conclusive. There are numerous other possible alternatives that you have not eliminated. For example, the fornicating angels may be the ones reserved in darkness and chains because this does not seem to be descriptive of those who rebelled with Satan.

 

[paidagogos]

Strange flesh can be anything...even color.

Even so, you haven't eliminated the possibility. What does it mean?

 

[paidagogos]

God created each "kind" separate. The "kinds" can't reproduce with each other, including angels and humans. That's God's science.

Can you actually say and sustain that this is "God's science." Careful readings of the texts state that each brought forth after its own kind and we infer that interfertility is within each kind (whatever a kind is). I do not dispute this as a good inference. However, it does not specifically declare that reproduction is strictly limited within a kind. So, we cannot make it on par with Scripture because it is our inference although based on Scripture. We must be careful in how far we go with our inferences.

 

[paidagogos]

Clear thinking?

Because of the definition of "son" in the sense of one who follows his teacher, as in an apprentice of sorts.

Also it is of the Jewish tradition which of whom we have received the Scriptures .

Obviously sons and daughters are parallel, yet different, ideas. So, what is a daughter then? Why is one a relationship of consanguinity and the other a relationship of affinity?

 

[paidagogos]

To espouse rhetoric in a way to condemn rhetoric is just plain silly.

How was my short post rhetorical? I simply pointed out that an "unbiased reading" of the texts did not mandate the stated conclusion but the term was used for its emotional appeal. The conclusion was not complusive from a simple reading of the texts but it was reached when one had pre-formed ideas and opinions that found apparent support in the texts. Furthermore, I will point out that your reposte was rhetorical in that it said nothing and used emotionally laden words (e.g. silly). It did nothing to advance the debate except supply some smug self-satisfaction. Enjoy it.

 

[Salamander]

What is the significance between the "sons of God" and "daughters of men" in Genesis 6:2? The Hebrew terms are Nb Myhla (ben 'elohiym) tb Mda (bath 'adam). Literally, the daughters of men can be thought of as the daughters of Adam. Where are the sons of Adam?

Also, the strange flesh (eteroV sarx - heteros sarx) in Jude 1:7 is literally "a different kind of flesh." Perhaps the Sodomites did have sexual relationships with angels too.

The truth is that we cannot say for certain that Genesis 6:2 and Jude 1:7 do not refer to angels and we cannot say without a doubt that these passages do refer to angels. The final word--it's a moot point.

Although I cannot authoritatively declare one way or the other, I do know that those who pontificate absolute declarations on either side are simply blowing smoke and demonstrating their own ignorance. What do I care for self-important opinions? And what is the value of eleven pages of speculation?

Ignorance of what, may I ask?

I find my Bible to maintain only one interpretation, not many.

Thou also hangest thyself in your opinion.:laugh:

 

[Salamander]

Could be but it is not conclusive. There are numerous other possible alternatives that you have not eliminated. For example, the fornicating angels may be the ones reserved in darkness and chains because this does not seem to be descriptive of those who rebelled with Satan.

I believe it's conclusive that it's not still happening if it ever did, that in itsself is proof enough that it is not according to the fantastical view of angels having sexual relations with daughters of men.

Show another passage where the sexual aspect originated from the angellic side towards humans? Attempting to do that from the case of sodomites lusting after angels who are in human form only proves that humans lust after human form.

 

[Salamander]

How was my short post rhetorical? I simply pointed out that an "unbiased reading" of the texts did not mandate the stated conclusion but the term was used for its emotional appeal. The conclusion was not complusive from a simple reading of the texts but it was reached when one had pre-formed ideas and opinions that found apparent support in the texts. Furthermore, I will point out that your reposte was rhetorical in that it said nothing and used emotionally laden words (e.g. silly). It did nothing to advance the debate except supply some smug self-satisfaction. Enjoy it.

:laugh: Follow Jewsih tradition, and you cannot say these were angels. The reason being the lineage kept according to the Jews can seem rather strange, yet very accurate.

In the situation of "sonship" according to Jewish tradition, introducing a completely alien aspect into the mix goes against their rules.

 

[Salamander]

Obviously sons and daughters are parallel, yet different, ideas. So, what is a daughter then? Why is one a relationship of consanguinity and the other a relationship of affinity?

The "daughter" is always from the view of her having parents.

A "son" can be both having parents and being an apprentice in a trade.

 

[Danny Hurley]

The sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wifes of all which they chose. And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. Were the sons of God, Seths sons and the daughters of man Cains daughters? Would their children be blessed from their father or cursed from their mother? Could this have a link to 1 Peter 3-18,19,20,21,22.

 

[paidagogos]

Ignorance of what, may I ask?

The interpretation of Scripture.

I find my Bible to maintain only one interpretation, not many.

Whereas the Scripture has one intended meaning, the interpretation is what you think it means which may or may not be the intended meaning.

Thou also hangest thyself in your opinion.:laugh:

More rhetoric. What do you mean by this inanity?

 

[Salamander]

The interpretation of Scripture.Whereas the Scripture has one intended meaning, the interpretation is what you think it means which may or may not be the intended meaning.More rhetoric. What do you mean by this inanity?

Scripture interprets Scripture, according to the Bible that is.

 

[paidagogos]

Scripture interprets Scripture, according to the Bible that is.

So, what's your point? What are you saying? Of course, Scripture compared with Scripture is the method but we do not always arrive at the same interpretation from the same Scriptures.

 

[Rubato 1]

I'm Back!

OK, so:
Sons of God means one thing here and another thing there? Or is it significant that men 'calling upon the name of the Lord' directly proceeds the firstmention of the 'Sons of God' first mention? Isn't 'calling upon the name of the Lord' a picture of salvation?

 

[Salamander]

I'm Back!

OK, so:
Sons of God means one thing here and another thing there? Or is it significant that men 'calling upon the name of the Lord' directly proceeds the firstmention of the 'Sons of God' first mention? Isn't 'calling upon the name of the Lord' a picture of salvation?

Yes, almost. The confusion occurs when one doesn't realize that men who call upon the name of the Lord are become priests of their familiy in that they are also ministers which are also considered to be angels which are God's messengers.

To understand what is referred to as "the sons of God" one must follow the context and stop this jumping all around the Scripture to try and prove their fantastical ideal.

Note that the judgement of God is expressly mentioned after Gen 6:3 upon "men" and not the "angels" for "GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

The if we follow the context even further, we find that it was man, not any angels, that repented the Lord that he had made MAN.
Gen 6:6And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.Gen 6:7And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

Since it should be that the "angels" are then supposed to be the "sons of God", wouldn't it be best that God pronounced judgement upon these angels and destroyed them and not men?

I believe what many fail to realize is that God has reserved judgement upon the angels who followed after satan. those angels are the demonic spirits that satan uses instead of his being in person upon every temptation and persecution of God's people.

Also, since it would have been the sin of the fallen angels to take them wives, by force as supposed, then they should have been destroyed and not men who later though continually upon evil because of their failing to keep following God.

Thuis we have the next verse:


Gen 6:8But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.

 

[Salamander]

So, what's your point? What are you saying? Of course, Scripture compared with Scripture is the method but we do not always arrive at the same interpretation from the same Scriptures.

You keep them in their context and you cannot help but acheive the same interpretation.:godisgood:

 

[paidagogos]

You keep them in their context and you cannot help but acheive the same interpretation.:godisgood:

No, this is a naive assumption. Given the same data and context, we do not always arrive at the same interpretation or conclusion because our minds are finite (i.e. limited), we do not have omniscience, and we are bent toward sin and self. We bring a "pre-understanding" into everything we read which influences our final understanding. Check your hermeneutic.

 

[Salamander]

No, this is a naive assumption. Given the same data and context, we do not always arrive at the same interpretation or conclusion because our minds are finite (i.e. limited), we do not have omniscience, and we are bent toward sin and self. We bring a "pre-understanding" into everything we read which influences our final understanding. Check your hermeneutic.

No, your ideal is diametrically opposed to sound reason because it suggests the incorporation of other verses taken in their own context all the while Genesis 6:3 should only be taken in its context.

It is hermenuetically incorrect to assume something by comparing Scripture to Scripture apart from the contexual meaning expressed in the original example.

I had no understanding of Gen 6:3 except in its context that it is dealing specifically with man and his wickedness.

Interjecting angellic beings when none have been mentioned beforehand is simply ludicrous.