The first sin, how is it possible?

[OldRegular]

Posted by Allan
Regeneration before faith is a 'LOGICAL' conclusion and not one found in the scriptures.

Allan I invite you to spend some time studying Ephesians 2:1-8 and Romans 8:28-30. you might be surprised at what you learn.

 

[canadyjd]

So if you look/lust it's not a sin until the sin is actually "literally/Physically" committed???

That is not what I said. I said there was no "sinful lust" in Eve's eyes because sin was not in the world until they ate of the tree of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil.

I know a "skypair" from another board, if it's the same one.

We agree about 98%, but have some differences.

You use very similar arguments.

peace to youraying:

 

[Marcia]

Allan or Marcia, can one of you give your interpretaion of Gen 6:1-4 when you get time ?

I believe that the "sons of God' are speaking of the sons of the godly line of Seth and the "daughters of men" are the ungodly line of Cain.

descendants indicate that “sons of God” applies to them: they “began to call upon the name of the Lord”
(4:26), “walked with God” (5:24), and “found favor in the eyes of the Lord” (6:8).
Second, Genesis 5:1–3 restates that Adam was created in God’s image and that Seth was begotten in
Adam’s image. The implication is that the line of Adam through Seth constitutes the sons of God.
Third, the line of Cain is pictured in exactly the opposite light. Cain is driven out from the presence of
God. Lamech, a descendent of Cain, takes two wives, contrary to the standard established in the garden.
When Cain murders his brother, God confronts him with his deed; yet, when Lamech commits murder,
the absence of God is painfully obvious. Cain laments that his punishment is too great to bear, but
Lamech boasts that he is able to take care of himself — he doesn’t need God’s protection. The primary
characterization of Cain’s line is that they were becoming increasingly separated from God.
Fourth, the writer of Genesis states that the sons of God saw that the daughters of humankind were
“beautiful” (Heb. tob). This connects the daughters of humankind in 6:2 with chapter 4. There, in the
genealogy of Cain, the sons of Lamech are named and something is said about each one’s impact on
society; for example, Tubal‐cain was the forger of all implements of bronze and iron. Tubal‐cain’s sister,
Naamah, is named, but nothing is said about her. This should make the reader wonder why she was
mentioned at all, especially since women were viewed as lower‐class citizens. Interestingly, her name
means “beautiful.” This is not the same word used in 6:2, but we have already seen that passages do not
need to use the same terms to be parallel
This article gives a good presentation of that view:
http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache...t+views+of+genesis+6&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=6&gl=us

This article also gives good reasons why this passage is not referring to fallen angels mating with women on earth.

I had trouble copying and pasting excerpts in.

 

[Allan]

would you say this is a serious issue?

No I don't actaully.

What is a serious issue in this - The actaul truth or what we percieve is mechanics by which it opperates. And even at that both views of the mechanics are similar as well just with varied emphasis.

 

[Allan]

I believe that the "sons of God' are speaking of the sons of the godly line of Seth and the "daughters of men" are the ungodly line of Cain.

descendants indicate that “sons of God” applies to them: they “began to call upon the name of the Lord”
(4:26), “walked with God” (5:24), and “found favor in the eyes of the Lord” (6:8).
Second, Genesis 5:1–3 restates that Adam was created in God’s image and that Seth was begotten in
Adam’s image. The implication is that the line of Adam through Seth constitutes the sons of God.
Third, the line of Cain is pictured in exactly the opposite light. Cain is driven out from the presence of
God. Lamech, a descendent of Cain, takes two wives, contrary to the standard established in the garden.
When Cain murders his brother, God confronts him with his deed; yet, when Lamech commits murder,
the absence of God is painfully obvious. Cain laments that his punishment is too great to bear, but
Lamech boasts that he is able to take care of himself — he doesn’t need God’s protection. The primary
characterization of Cain’s line is that they were becoming increasingly separated from God.
Fourth, the writer of Genesis states that the sons of God saw that the daughters of humankind were
“beautiful” (Heb. tob). This connects the daughters of humankind in 6:2 with chapter 4. There, in the
genealogy of Cain, the sons of Lamech are named and something is said about each one’s impact on
society; for example, Tubal‐cain was the forger of all implements of bronze and iron. Tubal‐cain’s sister,
Naamah, is named, but nothing is said about her. This should make the reader wonder why she was
mentioned at all, especially since women were viewed as lower‐class citizens. Interestingly, her name
means “beautiful.” This is not the same word used in 6:2, but we have already seen that passages do not
need to use the same terms to be parallel
This article gives a good presentation of that view:
http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache...t+views+of+genesis+6&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=6&gl=us

This article also gives good reasons why this passage is not referring to fallen angels mating with women on earth.

I had trouble copying and pasting excerpts in.

In my personal studies and in later my schooling days I will have to concur with Marcia here. You can't get around the context that they were humans and not spiritual beings. But for a very simple and concise point as to why - In Matt 22:30Jesus said angels do not 'marry' nor do they 'procreate' and demons are just that - angels.

 

[Allan]

The word "free-will" may be the problem. I prefer to use the term "human will".

Thanks for the input.

peace to youraying:

No problem, just remember that when speaking even of the 'human will' and choice - it still never refers to the absense of outside or inside influences. :thumbs:

 

[Allan]

Allan I invite you to spend some time studying Ephesians 2:1-8 and Romans 8:28-30. you might be surprised at what you learn.

Oh I have :thumbs:

But I said is not from just from my research but also stated by many of those of the Reformed position.

 

[OldRegular]

Originally Posted by OldRegular
Allan I invite you to spend some time studying Ephesians 2:1-8 and Romans 8:28-30. you might be surprised at what you learn.

Response Posted by Allan
Oh I have

But I said is not from just from my research but also stated by many of those of the Reformed position.

Then you obviously still do not understand but keep at it. Perhaps you will get a "word of knowledge" as some like to say.

 

[Me4Him]

That is not what I said. I said there was no "sinful lust" in Eve's eyes because sin was not in the world until they ate of the tree of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil.

The point I was "trying" to make is that sin is conceived in the "Heart/Mind", by the flesh, and it's the "Heart/Mind" Jesus purged of sin.

Heb 9:14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

Heb 10:2 For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.

You use very similar arguments.

peace to youraying:

If he's "Southern Baptist" and I'm "Southern Baptist", why shouldn't we agree on most points. :laugh:

Am 3:3 Can two walk together, except they be agreed? :thumbs:

 

[Me4Him]

Posted by Allan
Regeneration before faith is a 'LOGICAL' conclusion and not one found in the scriptures.

Allan I invite you to spend some time studying Ephesians 2:1-8 and Romans 8:28-30. you might be surprised at what you learn.

Old Regular, have you ever ask the question "WHY" did God give Adam/Eve a choice in the first place???

There a "reason" for everything God does.

Anyone can read the events occuring in scripture, but being able to explain the "Reason" for these events, is much deeper than the words on paper.

Rome destroyed Jerusalem/Temple, scattered the Jews, "WHY", what was the "Reason", easy answer, but do the same with "EVERYTHING" in scripture.

 

[quickened1]

I believe that the "sons of God' are speaking of the sons of the godly line of Seth and the "daughters of men" are the ungodly line of Cain.

descendants indicate that “sons of God” applies to them: they “began to call upon the name of the Lord”
(4:26), “walked with God” (5:24), and “found favor in the eyes of the Lord” (6:8).
Second, Genesis 5:1–3 restates that Adam was created in God’s image and that Seth was begotten in
Adam’s image. The implication is that the line of Adam through Seth constitutes the sons of God.
Third, the line of Cain is pictured in exactly the opposite light. Cain is driven out from the presence of
God. Lamech, a descendent of Cain, takes two wives, contrary to the standard established in the garden.
When Cain murders his brother, God confronts him with his deed; yet, when Lamech commits murder,
the absence of God is painfully obvious. Cain laments that his punishment is too great to bear, but
Lamech boasts that he is able to take care of himself — he doesn’t need God’s protection. The primary
characterization of Cain’s line is that they were becoming increasingly separated from God.
Fourth, the writer of Genesis states that the sons of God saw that the daughters of humankind were
“beautiful” (Heb. tob). This connects the daughters of humankind in 6:2 with chapter 4. There, in the
genealogy of Cain, the sons of Lamech are named and something is said about each one’s impact on
society; for example, Tubal‐cain was the forger of all implements of bronze and iron. Tubal‐cain’s sister,
Naamah, is named, but nothing is said about her. This should make the reader wonder why she was
mentioned at all, especially since women were viewed as lower‐class citizens. Interestingly, her name
means “beautiful.” This is not the same word used in 6:2, but we have already seen that passages do not
need to use the same terms to be parallel
This article gives a good presentation of that view:
http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache...t+views+of+genesis+6&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=6&gl=us

This article also gives good reasons why this passage is not referring to fallen angels mating with women on earth.

I had trouble copying and pasting excerpts in.

The New Testament sheds light on the O.T. scripture. The writer of the article does not figure the N.T. into his interpretation. In my opinion there is enough there in Gen. 6:1-4 to tell us that these "sons of God" were not men. They get the pick of the litter and the men cant do anything about it. Their offspring are giants and these giants are known as mighty men of old, men of renown. Not just some of their offspring turn out this way but all of them ("the same").

John 1:12 proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the only way possible for a son of man to become a son of God is to recieve the Lord Jesus Christ. Jesus made this possible because he lead a sinless life which established his righteousness. This righteousness of his is the only righteousness God accepts. The reason we are righteous and justified in God's eyes is because we are IN CHRIST. None of this was possible until Jesus took on a body and lived his life here on earth. Our image is restored to the image of God at the new birth. Not before. Not in the O.T. The O.T. backs this up by refusing to call a man a son of God. The writer of the article sights Hosea 1:10.

10: Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered; and it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God. (Hosea 1:10 KJV).

This is a prophecy that will be fulfilled in the millineum. This is not saying there were men in the O.T. that were sons of God.

Also for a son of man to become a son of God, an adoption must take place. Again this blessing, as all blessings, comes through the Lord Jesus Christ.




1: Now I say, That the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all;
2: But is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father.
3: Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world:
4: But when the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,
5: To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.
6: And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.
7: Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ. (Gal. 4:1-7 KJV). So it wasn't possible to become a son until after Christ.

Angels are spirits but they can eat and drink and can mate with women. The angels in heaven do not marry. Their are no female angels and it appears that their are no women in heaven. When women are conformed to the image of the Son, completely, they will be sons. Just because angels dont marry does not mean they can't. Christians on this earth can marry but many never do.

There are "elect angels" and non elect. Christians will be as elect angels when they recieve their eternal body.

1 Corinthians 11:10 gives us something interesting. Unsubmissive women are a target of these fallen angels.

10: For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels. (1 Cor. 11:10 KJV).

A woman is not a head. So she is told to cover her head or wear long hair. That is her power. If she is unsubmissive this scripture is saying the fallen angels are watching and may target her.

As for some of the other things said in the link: In Gen. 5 the main thing is that Seth is born in Adam's image rather than God's. It's not about Seth being chosesn as the supposed godly line. This is one reason Christ has to come and die on this earth. To restore the image to man. That is the main thing here. Not Seth mentioned being born in Adam's image and omitting Cain. Besides only Enoch and Noah were righteous in God's sight. The writer of the article kind of makes it appear that the whole line of Seth was righteous until they married Cain's daughters. Applying spiritual application, comparing Noah with Christ and the Ark to Christ's body, we learn that even Noah's family only survived because of Noah's righteousness rather than their own.

 

[Marcia]

The New Testament sheds light on the O.T. scripture. The writer of the article does not figure the N.T. into his interpretation. In my opinion there is enough there in Gen. 6:1-4 to tell us that these "sons of God" were not men. They get the pick of the litter and the men cant do anything about it. Their offspring are giants and these giants are known as mighty men of old, men of renown. Not just some of their offspring turn out this way but all of them ("the same").

Where does it say they get "the pick of the litter?"

Where does it say their offspring are giants? I've looked for that before and it doesn't say that. It just says those were days when the Nephilim were in the land.

Angels are spirits but they can eat and drink and can mate with women.

Where is the biblical basis for them being able to mate with women?

There are "elect angels" and non elect. Christians will be as elect angels when they recieve their eternal body.

What do you mean we will be "as elect angels?" Angels are spirit beings. We are not.

1 Corinthians 11:10 gives us something interesting. Unsubmissive women are a target of these fallen angels.

10: For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels. (1 Cor. 11:10 KJV).

This doesn't mean because the angels will prey on the women! It's because the angels are watching. There are other passages that refer to angels watching.