Featured The Resurrection Body and 1st Cor. 15

Although I agree with some of your points and principles from your earlier post....this one regardless of any truth value is uncalled for and inappropriate.

 

The Biblicist--

procreation is certainly designed to be restricted to marriage, but does this stop humans from having premarital sex? No! And while overstepping this boundary causes procreation outside of marriage to be a sin, the fact is fallen & rebellious angels do/have sinned & clearly overstep the boundaries of what they were designed or created to do. If this wasn't true there wouldn't be any fallen angels to speak of. Just b/c God has a purpose, boundaries, or specific designs for something doesn't mean humans or fallen angels uphold God's intention (although i do agree that angels were never meant to marry or procreate & there is absolutely nothing in scripture that says angels ever procreate w/ other angels--so i want you to know we do agree on that idea)

The evidence certainly favors a Gen 6 reference, especially considering there was no other well-known group of chained angels during NT authorship; The Greek grammatical connection between Jude 6 & 7 favors an angelic sexual sin; the Tartarus/Gen 6 angel connection in Jewish thought (see the rarity of the Greek word tartarosas); the fact Jude mentions chained angels only a few sentences apart from a 1 Enoch quote (w/ out explain an alternative view); the fact that Peter follows his description of these angels with a pre-flood world reference; the fact that these angels are jailed until the final judgment & are not active in the modern world, thus disqualifying Satan & other active demons; the fact that there is no historical evidence for an alternative view to the angelic Gen 6 interpretation during NT authorship (cf 1 Enoch 6-19; Jubilees 4: 15, 22; 5: 1; Damascus Document 2: 17-19; 1QapGen 2:1; Testament of Reuben 5:7; Testament of Naphtali 3:5; 2 Barach 56:10-14). The fact that an overwhelming majority of modern scholarly commentaries admit this can be nothing other than a Gen 6 angelic reference. Karen Jobes (in her commentary on 1 peter) even raises the point concerning the familiarity Peter’s readers would have had with the evil spirits from Gen 6, b/c of the cultural importance of the flood tradition to residents of Asia Minor (the recipients of Peter’s letter, who believed Noah’s ark settled in their region). I honestly could go on---but since I’ve yet to hear your evidence for a proposed alternative interpretation –please give me your interpretation of 2 Pet 2:4 & Jude 6

This is actually a highly commendable & educated point on your part. And one I actually deal with in my longer writings. The theological belief system of the Sadduccees seemingly had to include some form of annihilationism, b/c they denied the immortality of the soul. Furthermore, there are some scholars who think Acts 23:8 doesn’t mean they denied the existence of angelic beings, b/c they clearly accepted the Pentateuch as authoritative & it confirms their existence. Thus, when Acts says they didn’t believe in angels it was referring to their rejection of the resurrection or the idea that humans existed in the afterlife in an angelic or spiritual state. If it was this ‘afterlife angelic/spiritual state’ & not proper angelic beings that Jesus was referring to in the Gospels in his debate with the Sadducees about the resurrection, then there is no Bible verse that ever address the issue of angelic marriage. And the words of Jesus would not be relevant to the Gen 6 debate, b/c he is not speaking of ontological angels, but human spirits in the afterlife. I actually have no problem with this theory on Acts 23 or the impact it would have on the true meaning of Jesus words & I commend you for bring up the issue.

As silly as that question may sound—it actually can have relevancy on the issue. First let me address the idea of appearance means change----yes this is exactly what I’m saying. A normal spirit cannot be touched, but when Jacob wrestled his night assailant in Gen 32:22-32 he could obviously touch him b/c he underwent physical combat w/ him. While Hos 12:4-6 identifies the assailant as an angel, the per-incarnate Christ theory also has possibility, but either way a spiritual being became tangible enough to be touched (fought w/ ju-jitsu style all night), so real change was involved. It is also clear in Gen 18:4-5 that angels were tangible enough in their visible form to have their feet washed (once again they had changed b/c they could be touched).
Gen 18:4-5-Let a little water be brought, and wash your feet, and rest yourselves under the tree, while I bring a morsel of bread, that you may refresh yourselves, and after that you may pass on--since you have come to your servant." So they said, "Do as you have said."

Furthermore, in their visible form, angels can physically touch & move tangible objects (Gen 19:10,16, Dan 8:18, Matt 28:2-3, ect). Peter even gets smacked upside the head by an angel in Acts 12:7 (ok maybe this is just envisioning on my part, but he did get hit hard enough to be woken up). While there is other information to add to this, these points alone show that a real change takes place, b/c as Jesus says in Luke 24:39 “See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me, and see. For a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have." So the very fact that angels can be physically touched in their visible form shows a real change has taken place from their normal non-flesh & bone spiritual form.

Concerning your question—the fact is they clearly eat human food (Gen 18:2,7-8,16; Gen 19:3)—you tell me what happens to the waste? It’s obvious from the other evidence a real change takes place & furthermore since Jesus ate earthly food in the resurrected body did he have to deal with waste? In Psalms 78:23-25 it speaks of angelic food, what do they do with the waste here? Have we stumbled on evidence that shows the existence of spiritual toilets & the reality of bathrooms in heaven? Personally I would think heaven has the technology to surpass the outdated outhouse, at least I hope so b/c I’m no fan of outhouses & wouldn’t be in favor of having to use one for the rest of my eternal existence. Now I think about it, outhouses have more of a Hell flare to them so I’m almost certain they will not be in heaven. :smilewinkgrin:
All joking aside, personally I think whatever Jesus did with the waste in his resurrected body is what the angels did with their waste—but I’m interested in your response, b/c I want to know if I need to start praying for a certain kind of toilet & nice bathroom fixtures, for when I get to my heavenly home.

All of this being said—since there is obviously no amount of evidence that would even begin to allow you to consider the angelic idea in Gen 6—it’s only fair you give your own exegesis of the ‘sons of God’ so I can have the opportunity to see what kind of proof you personally find convincing--looking forward to your response--God Bless

 

Gabriel Elijah

I wish to commend you for presenting and defending so articulately your positions on angels and Gen 6. In full disclosure, I must admit that I have never accepted that position, most likely due to the influence of an OT Prof early in college. He was and always has been an exceptional mentor in my life. I find your contribution interesting and informative but I will most likely remain with the position of Gen 6 referring to the intermarriage of the godly and ungodly strands of humanity. Hope to see more of your contributions.

 

Thank you for the kind words, they were extremely encouraging & much needed. We often have no clue what’s going on in the personal life of the individual behind the BB post, & w/ out getting into detail, your positive words were truly an answered prayer. Thank you for that--& I have no problem if the angelic view of Gen 6 is not what you personally support, it is technically a 2nd rate doctrine; thus, we have the right to be wrong about these kind of theological issues. But your posts have always demonstrated your desire to demonstrate the proper Christian attitude & know that God had His hand on your response to me—God bless

 

Sexual relationships whether legal or illegal is only possible due to being first created with the potential for procreation and ability for PHYSICAL sexual relationships. Angels were not created with a PHYSICAL system for procreation because they are "spirit." So your reasoning here is irrational as you attempt to make a leap from a constitutionally created sexually eqipped physical being to a non-constitutionally sexually created spiritual being. Since demon possession does not produce angel/men you are forced to the position that angels have creative power to create a complete and real physical human nature APART FROM GOD'S CREATION OF MAN and somehow disfigure the HUMAN DNA into an ANGELIC/HUMAN DNA. Simply irrational!

Overstepping the boundaries "TO DO" is one thing, but to BECOME what they were not created as, is quite another thing. Your position demands that "spirit" creatures become their OWN Creators of a new specie of angel that is no longer "spirit" as God created them but now have the ability to actually create themselves a new nature, a real physical human nature with all the reproductive functions, digestive functions (which necessarily includes the redistribution of food through a blood system to all parts of the body, nervous system, etc.). Therefore, you are claiming that angels have creative power to transform their own nature into something entirely different than what God created them to be. That is simply irrational since God alone is attributed creative power.

The immediate contextual evidence of Genesis 3-6 does not favour your theory at all. Indeed, it favors the demonically led intermarriage between the two previous separated lines of Seth and Cain, as this same thing occurred AFTER THE FLOOD as the writer distinctly says. The terms used in Genesis six can be equally applied to the great wickedness that defiled the godly line of seth and thus all mankind with exception to Noah and thus account for God's wrath upon the whole human race by the flood.

You forget that the fall of angels with Lucifer was a preflood event also that cast them out of heaven into the lower realms where Satan became "the god" of this world with his legions.

Furthermore, this is about angels who did not keep their "FIRST ESTATE" rather than angels who went into secondary steps of sin as your position demands concerning the flood which would necessary be a "SECONDARY" rebellion.

 

This preterist belief of a "spiritual" body as an outcome of the resurrection of the dead is not confined to preterism's systematic theology even within "traditional" Christendom.

Personally I am way over on the "material" but glorified body view since there are passages concerning "eating" by this resurrected body.

Luke 22
28 Ye are they which have continued with me in my temptations.
29 And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me;
30 That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

Jesus showed Himself in His physical body to the disciples after the resurrection and ate with them.

Luke 24:39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.

He ascended into heaven in this physical body recorded in Acts 1.

9 And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.
10 And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel;
11 Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.

like manner : in a physical body.

1 John 3:2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.

There is no scientific treatise concerning our resurrected body in the Bible but for sure God is able to adapt/renovate this resurrected body (which will somehow remain related to its physical and earthly origin) to exist and thrive in an eternal dwelling place enjoying an eternal fellowship with God our father and our brethren.

Psalm 16:11 Thou wilt shew me the path of life: in thy presence is fulness of joy; at thy right hand there are pleasures for evermore.


HankD

 

The Biblicist—sorry for the delay- I’ve been slammed the past week & just got a chance to see you responded—thank you for taking the time to keep the conversation going –w/ this being said—let us continue—I find it interesting that you reply by saying:

Contextually speaking, the text does not favor a Sethite interpretation--especially if the proposal is marriage w/ Cainite women –the opening phrase of Gen 6:1-‘When man began to multiply on the face of the land’ --is a macro-syntactic sign or transition statement in the Hebrew—its purpose is to summarize & move forward, introducing new direction in the story motif, where chronological aspect is secondary. Simply put, the introductory phrase in Gen 6:1, signals the reader that the context is moving to a new topic; thus the focus is on the proceeding (Gen 6:2ff), not the preceding context of Gen 5 (see studies on the term ‘began’ in Gen 1-11). While not totally disconnected from the previous material, it does shift the contextual emphasis & sets the stage for the next major event, in this case- it sets the stage for the Great flood (Gen 6:9ff). Without a doubt, the Hebrew of Gen 6:1 demonstrates why the context of Gen 6:2 cannot be determined by the context of Gen 5! While this does not eliminate the sethite proposal—it does hinder any ‘sons of God’ identification that rests its evidence solely on the circumstances of the preceding Genesis section. [For more on this see: Helge S Kvanvig, “Gen 6,1-4 as an Antediluvian event” (2002) & Willem A Van Gemeren, “The Sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4 (An example of Evangelical Demythologization?)”]. To add to this, one has to consider how the ‘sons of God’ were marrying the ‘daughters of men’ before some of the events/people talked about in Gen 4-5—this shows how Gen 6:1-8 does not chronologically proceed all of Gen 4-5, further adding to the last point. (Unfortunately it is this same Hebrew construction that hinders my own attempts to contextually connect Nimrod in Gen 10 w/ the Tower of Babel/ziggurat of Gen 11—while not eliminating the connection it forces me to find other evidence to prove my premise—the same thing you must do if you want support for the Sethite idea)

In addition, v 2 cannot exclusively be about Cainite women, b/c the Hebrew ha'adam clearly means ‘all of mankind’ in Gen 6:1—thus it should mean ‘all of mankind’ in Gen 6:2 (ie ‘daughters of men’ cannot be limited to a certain human family, a point I’ve already written about in a previous post). This a fact even Sethite supporters admit- causing many to abandon a limited Sethite/Cainite marriage proposal. As K Matthews (a Sethite supporter) states: “we do not insist that the “daughters of men” ( bĕnôt hā’ādām) refers exclusively to Cainite women. Verse 1 speaks of human procreation in general by the collective use of “men” ( hā’ādām ), meaning “people,” as in 5:1b–2 (cf. 6:5). “Daughters of men,” then, in v. 2 again refers to women regardless of parentage” (NAC 1a). Thus, the original language will not allow the proper interpretation to be limited to the out-dated Sethite-Cainite idea!

Another issue that needs to be addressed is your statement, “this same thing occurred AFTER THE FLOOD as the writer distinctly says” Actually you seem to have misread this bc Gen 6: 4 states ‘The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them’—First, this is not even about the sons of God marriages, it’s about the ‘Nephilim’. Second, the Hebrew here is complicated & it causes much debate concerning the identification & timing of the Nephilim; ie are they the marriage offspring, the same as ‘men of renown’-- or are they simply mentioned as a reference point, already on the earth before & while the sons of God marriages were taking place (a 3rd option even has the Nephilim existing after the flood, usually supported by interpreting Num 13 a certain way & the idea that OT giants came from their family line). If you want I’ll be happy to explain the entire debate in detail for you—but for now understand that Gen 6:4 is clearly about the Nephilim (when it says ‘afterward’) not the ‘sons of God marriages’ (which-according to your idea- if ‘afterward’ meant after the flood it would require a pure Cainite linage to survive the flood somehow—an idea you’d have difficulty proving). Thus there is absolutely no credence to your overall suggestion b/c it ironically ignores the actual context!

Furthermore, without going into to detail- a series of other problems surrounding the Sethite view are:
• In the Hebrew-- the phrases “sons of God” & the “daughters of men”-- are meant to be contrasted from each other. The contrast that is implied between ha’adam (mankind, earthly sphere) & bene elohim (divine or heavenly sphere) is achieved in an angelic view but not with a purely human Sethite/Cainite view.
• The fact Godly/ungodly marriages would not inevitably produce ‘warrior offspring’ (ancient Gibborim)—which is the stated result of the marriage in Gen 6:4; ie consider the warrior capability of an angel (2 Kings 19:35; ect) which would naturally allow for warrior offspring-- (I’m not even getting into the possible Giant interpretation of the Nephilim -but if provable this too is a major obstacle for the Sethite idea, b/c it would not explain the unusual size of the marriage offspring—but considering the debate surrounding the ‘Nephilim’ term-- I seldom use this as a proof point, just a consideration)
• Sethites are never called ‘sons of God’ (exact ‘bene Elohim’ phrase) anywhere in scripture & most modern scholars admit ‘children of god’ does not carry the same Hebrew meaning & is not the exact same Hebrew phrase. Quickly summarizing a point I’ve already made that you’ve failed to address---: ‘Sons of God’ (Hebrew: bene ha’elohim) is Hebrew idiom for angelic/celestial beings. The only other time the exact phrase is used in Scripture is in Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; & the LXX of Deut 32:8—all of which clearly refer to celestial creatures. The closest other use of the phrase is in Ps 29:1 & 89:6, both of which refer to angels. There is no instance in Scripture where this idiom refers to anything other than superhuman entities. The closest argument against this would come with Ps 82. But the exact Hebrew phrase is not used & more modern scholars are opting for a celestial interpretation of this passage as well (see Michael Heiser)
• There is no evidence that all the Sethites were godly, just b/c a few were (Seth; Enoch; Noah) does not qualify the rest of the family to be followers of the one true God. For evidence of this-- simply consider how Abraham’s father Terah worshipped false gods (josh 24:2); how many OT priests had evil children; & the simple fact that Adam worshipped God but his son Cain is the very one the ungoldly line of Gen 4 comes from. I could go on, but to the point, one’s family does not determine their relationship w/ God & while I personally think some were certainly godly (& even possibly a kind of pre-flood priestly class)—there is no evidence that the clan as a whole deserved a godly classification (see the debate around Gen 4:26 for more on this) The theme of the genealogy in Gen 5 is to demonstrate how God fulfilled His Gen 3:15 promise & how Noah would carry it on to the post-flood world—not how the Sethites as a whole worshipped Yahweh
• If all the Sethites were godly—then why was there only 1 Sethite family (Noah & sons) saved from the flood?-- Why didn’t the rest of these godly men get saved, if they truly worshipped Yahweh? (I’ll let you answer this before I go any further, b/c there is much to consider about this common question)
• Finally, the first clear reference to the Sethite theory does not come until Julius Africanus in the 3rd century AD--Who admitted the angel view prevailed in his day! Good luck finding any earlier historical reference—bc it doesn’t exist! If the Sethite view is accurate—why such a late date for its proposal? This is especially perplexing when considering how the angelic interpretation (& even the nobles/judges view) have much earlier historical evidence!
I could go on—but I’d like to see your response to these problems—b/c there are plenty more issues that need to be addressed!

 

You seem to ‘forget’ that Gen 6:2-4 is a “pre-flood event’! LOL—it actually sets the stage for the flood itself! Second—you forget—the Bible NEVER explains if the angels fell w/ Satan or if there was one angelic rebellion or many! All we know is that Satan himself fell before or possibly during Gen 3. For all your emphasis on context—you’ve obviously neglected the debate concerning the context of Isa 14 & Ezek 28—where the text never mentions Satan! Now to be fair, I think a satanic reference can be proven in these texts—but it certainly is not clear & it takes work on the part of the theologian—not just a quick reference to traditional notions! (see the complications that surround the timing of Luke 10:18 & the Isa 14 connection in: S Page’s ‘Powers of Evil’; D Bock, ‘Luke’ Baker Exegetical; Stein, ‘luke’ NAC; Oswalt, ‘Isaiah’ NICOT, ect)—while Isa/Ezek possibly refer to Satan, it certainly is not a given-& considering that ‘Lucifer’ is a Latinized version of the Hebrew Helel, it seems unlikely that Lucifer is a pre-fallen angelic name for Satan (although I personally think it’s possible based on gen 3/isa 14 linguistic connection but I have to admit the odds aren’t favorable)

WRONG!!!!! First, the Greek of Jude 6 does not support such a proposal. In fact the Greek actually supports an angelic sexual sin (see the v 7 connection)! Second-as previously mentioned the Bible is not clear on the number or timing of angelic rebellions & Gen 6 is possibly the rebellious act that caused these particular angels to fall (see Page & Schreiner)-this would explain what distinguishes these incarcerated angels from the fallen angels who are free & currently roaming the earth involved in demonic activity (Eph 6:10-12, ect). Third, the wording of your last statement seems to imply that fallen angels only had one grave sin of rebellion—but the fact is- every time they sin—they are rebelling against their Creator! It’s not the gravity that makes it rebellion—it’s the act of sin itself. Finally, Even if we allow Rev 12 into the equation, it is very vague in regard to timing, method, or even the number of rebellions (some scholars even try to say the stars aren’t referring to the angelic rebellion)—thus it honestly doesn’t give your statement any support & it certainly doesn’t disprove the angelic indication of Gen 6.
On a personal note--& I almost hesitate to say this b/c it might come across wrong—but-- -your personal biblical demonology seem to put too much emphasis on ‘unfounded tradition’ (you might want to invest in some modern technical commentaries, current books on biblical demonology, or journal articles post 1990’s that address the issue). Without being disrespectful, many of your suggestions are oversimplified & archaic when compared to contemporary scholarship (ie many of your rebuttals have already been dealt with & dismissed due to the lack of genuine biblical evidence). With this being said—I can tell that you actually think about most of the things you write & we do agree on many theological issues—but your short responses show lack of research on your part & do not do justice to the investigation & effort I’m giving you in return—if we are going to continue this dialogue--please actually take the time to read what I’m writing (& actually address what’s being said)—while giving better proof points to your own proposals (saying things like ‘you forget’ comes across as egotistical & does not further your stance—especially when the point that follows is unsubstantiated)— Personally I think you have the theological capability to contribute to the Gen 6 debate—but your oversimplified rebuttals are not demonstrating your true proficiency—please consider this—I look forward to your next response & God bless!

 

Suuuure it is?!? Just explain away its obvious meaning since it just does not support your position! Sorry, that is merely your opinion based upon nothing but wishful thinking. Let's just skip verse 1 and imagine it does not mean what it says and go right on to verse 2. Sorry, but this kind of heremneutics demonstrates this is a complete waste of my time. If you can't see the obvious meaning of the very first verse, then why bother to proceed.

 

Actually read what I just wrote—attempt to actually refute what I said by breaking it down sentence by sentence—then find scholarly evidence that supports your suggestion (like the articles & commentaries I gave)—then attempt to say to me that I’m in any way skipping or ignoring the context of Gen 6:1—this verse is crucial—And cannot be haphazardly passed by—if you actually read what I wrote—you’d understand that I addressed it in detail & saying I somehow ignored it, is simply absurd! Now I’m giving you the chance to rethink that statement—while at the same time giving you the opportunity to support your view by addressing the problems it has--ie the same way I did when you attempted to attack the angelic idea. The Sethite theory lacks the biblical evidence contained in the angelic interpretation. In fact, if I were truly anti-angelic on this—I’d use a version of the nobles/judges/rulers view—b/c at least there is some biblical support for this proposal!—the same cannot be said about your suggestion—now if you really want to continue—then please address what I’ve written (w/ academic support; scriptural breakdown, ect)—if not I understand--the issue is time consuming & it’s much easier to accept unfounded tradition that has caused the Sethite theory to crumble—then actually examine the evidence & admit the complicated nature of this biblical passage! God Bless!

 

Are you kidding me? There are many reputable Hebrew scholars and commentators who take my position and repudiate yours. My Hebrew teacher in Seminary wrote a very scholar paper on the subject opposing your position doing a word by word exposition of the text. There are many other scholars who reject your position and interpetation. Such scholars as the Presbyterian Commentator Albert Barnes, H.C. Leupold, Poole, etc.)

You simply do not have any solid exegetical basis for your interpetation of the first verse in Genesis 6, ESPECIALLY when you consider the original Hebrew was not divided into chapter and verse divisions and thus the last verse in chapter five naturally introduces generation among men leading into verse 1 of chapter six rather than among angels and men. So your dealing of verse 1 is quite simple to refute from the context of what immediately precedes it.


Here is an example of a scholarly repudiation of your position - https://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/reprints/sons-of-god-in-genesis-6.pdf

 

the fact you consider these men 'modern scholars'--proves what i mean when I say your 'archaic!' You do understand that quoting these types would get you laughed out of a college classroom--b/c internet searches on outdated free commentaries-- no longer hold any weight in the world of academia--take the time to see the modern debate--find those who support your view by addressing the current issues--I'll give you a starting point--Kenneth Matthews--go from there--but in the mean time--
Please actual address the proof points & problems w/the Sethite idea that i've pinpointed--if not-- I'll understand--issues that overwhelm take to much time for those who dont have the desire to research & actually cross compare modern theological issues!

 

Read more carefully. I did not list just older scholars, although I did list some. BTW, just because they are older scholars does not mean their points and language skills are invalid. Any detailed argument takes a lot of time to address point by point. When I get the time I will oblige.

 

I have not found any response by you to the above arguments. If I missed it, then point it out. I saw a reference to one point. I never saw your response to this article: https://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/reprints/sons-of-god-in-genesis-6.pdf

 

The book of Genesis is a record of beginnings. No doubt there is a shift to something new in Genesis 6:2-6 which forms the basis for why the flood came upon all mankind. However, the preceding context of chapters 4-5 cannot be so easily divorced from this sequence of events. There is a clear separation between the line of Seth and Cain that is provided in much detail. There are clear indications that the line of Seth was a godly line, whereas, the line of Cain began in open rebellion against God and the lack of true worship and morality prevailed in that line. The study source that I referenced for you proves this case clearly (https://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/reprints/sons-of-god-in-genesis-6.pdf).

Your comment on "began" and how it is used does not really support your position. In each instance, where the term "began" is introduced, what it introduces continues to be the subject in the same verse. For example:

Ge 9:20 And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard:

Ge 10:8 And Cush begat Nimrod: he began to be a mighty one in the earth.

Ge 41:54 And the seven years of dearth began to come, according as Joseph had said: and the dearth was in all lands; but in all the land of Egypt there was bread.

Ge 44:12 And he searched, and began at the eldest, and left at the youngest: and the cup was found in Benjamin’s sack.

What Noah "began" was carried out in planting a vineyard ending up being drunken from that vineyard. What Nimrod began was to be a mighty hunter, thus containing the very subject in the same verse. Seven years began what God had predicted and the same verse continues the subject began. What Jospeh began with the youngest continued to the eldest and the verse continues the same subject. Therefore, what "began" in Genesis 6:1 contains the same subject begun - "men began to multiply" or marriage. However, that has been the subject in chapters 4-5, the multiplication of men separated in two distinct lines, one which is godly and the other which is ungodly.

The hebrew in verse 1 demands no such thing, that is your pure imagination. As before shown by the study of "began" the subject matter is contained in the very same verse. Therefore, if the Hebrew indicates anything by repetitive usage of "began" it fully supports that marriage and populating the earth by mankind is still the subject in view except that this particular marriage between two different types morally corrupts mankind in so much that a flood was God's response to such wickedness that resulted in this particular kind of marriage. In direct contrast, the marriage and reproductive line of Seth produced a far more godly line than that of Cain.

Again, pure imagination your part. There is no "how" of marriage defined here. Instead, it is simply marriage that is being declared not explained "how." Verse one uses the normal Hebrew for reproduction among human beings ("began to multiply"). Verse two uses the same normal Hebrew terms for marriage "took them wives." That phrase is used multitudes of times in the Old Testament simply for common marriage. There is no "how"of explanation but only assertion of the same common language used for ordinary marriage between human beings.

Not so! The preceding context makes Genesis 6:1-2 a natural conclusion to the aforesaid carefully separated lines now being mixed. The characteristics of godliness are directly attributed to the line of Seth repeatedly. The complete absence of any godly characteristics is obvious in the line of Cain. The natural consequence of being "unequally yoked together" is that the same as in the New Testament reason for prohibiting such a marriage. So for you to say that the Hebrew construction "hinders" my interpretation is simply a fabricated nonsense.

Again, that is the thinking of some, but not all. For example, the conclusion drawn in verse 3 by God is "with men" not with "angels and men." God specifically states that His response is "with men" whom he defines further as "flesh" not angelic. When Satan entered into the human domain as instigator of sin, God dealt with the instigator Satan first in judgement, yet here in verse 3 God's response to the sin in question has no mention of anyone but "with men" who are further defined as "flesh" not "with angels AND men."

The words "ha'adam" in verse 2 demands a more limited portion of mankind than in verse 1. The term "daughters" limit what portion of mankind is in view concerning those "taken in marriage." I believe the words "sons of God" also limit what portion of mankind took the "daughters of men" in marriage. So yes, verse 1 speaks defines the realm in general wherein reproduction through marriage occurred, thus confining this populating exercise through marriage within the boundaries of human beings (not angels and human beings), whereas, verse 2 then becomes specific within that general boundary and defines the precise sub-groups within humanity in general that entered into marriage. Of course, my view is that "sons of God" refers to those formerly that were "called by His name" (Gen. 4:26b) and although angels are frequently mentioned in the book of Genesis they are never referred to as "sons of God" by Moses anywhere else.

I am not misreading at all. Is it not your argument that the intermarriage between angels and men is what produces "Nephilim"? If not, it sure is the common argument of those who advocate your position. Therefore, if that is the condition for producing "Nephilim....on earth IN THOSE DAYS" then after God destroyed all mankind, including the Nephilim, only the same conditions could explain their existence "afterward" as Numbers 13 clearly claims the "Nephilim" did exist after the flood. Hence, your interpretation requires not only a SECOND fall by the angels in Genesis 6 but a THIRD after the flood. Thus the nonsense of your interpretation becomes more nonsenical.

The precise definition of the terms may be complicated but where do you get the idea that there is complication in the Hebrew grammar for suggesting that Nephilim are not further described as "men of renown"?????? Where do you get the idea that there is a complication in regard to "timing" when you admit that the same term is used after the flood in Numbers 13??? I think the only complication is for your position.

 

Look, I have five years classroom Greek, two years of classroom Hebrew and one year of Latin. I am not a Greek or Hebrew scholar, and I know what one really is because I sat under the best that Southern Baptist Seminaries had to offer, but I am sufficiently taught so that no one can simply bamboozle me.

So you don't have to explain to me what is obvious. It is obvious that the "nephalim" are the products of the marriage between "the sons of God" and the "daughters of men" as they are the ones wherein absolute corruption and ungodliness generated throughout the earth. In Numbers 13 these are offspring of human beings through human marriage, unless you want to hypothesize another and THIRD fall of angels and intermarriage among men?????

Of course they are set in contrast but not the contrast of your choosing. Of course verse 1 is about men and populating the earth within the sphere of mankind (which repudiate your theory). Again, both "sons of God" and "daughters of men" (v. 2) are distinct contrasting subsets within the realm of mankind (v. 1) not within the realms of angels and mankind.

Got to stop here as its getting too long.

 

Biblicist-I applaud the effort & the fact you’ve obviously spent the last day researching & thinking about this topic for yourself. When it comes to gen 6—this is all I ever ask. But I do want to clarify a few things. First, your internet post by Majors & Apologetic press (Church of Christ research in Montgomery AL btw)- I actually liked, b/c I’ve interacted w/ Majors in the past. And while we wholeheartedly disagree on this topic, he does at least begin to address the issues in the modern Gen 6 debate. I actually wrote an article to counteract his paper for my universities electronic database, so if you pay close enough attention you’ll see that I do actual address what he says & counteract it. But regardless, he is a good starting point for a Sethite supporter (but I still highly recommend K Matthews b/c he’s Baptist whereas AP is church of Christ & the company is insistent on baptism for salvation).
Next I want to expound on what was said about your other sources. I honestly appreciate older scholars. And Leupold was one of the 1st Genesis commentaries I ever read. So I’m not implying that these teachers have nothing to contribute & I respect them. However, most of the sources you gave existed in a time when research material was much harder to come by & when Gen 6 & biblical demonology as a whole was not studied with any depth.

Simply put, there was a time when scholarship in biblical demonology was lacking among conservative scholars—most simply footnoted someone, who simply footnoted someone else, who simply took traditional interpretation as a given & never took the time to actual prove the legitimacy of the idea. Unfortunately this mentality inevitably led conservative theology to become lazy & weak; in turn allowing liberal theology to step in & destroy those who were unprepared. At the forefront of this attack was Genesis 1-11. Instead of being recognized as God’s Word like it truly is—it was deemed a raw piece of mythology—a nice story that uneducated man used to explain his origins, but whose historical reliability was lacking. From this was born the concept of ‘demythologization’ -where everything that didn’t match the modern scientific mind was labeled irrelevant & dismissed as past superstition. One of the 1st topics to get shredded by this rational chopping block --was the idea that spiritual beings such as angels & demons really existed. Another was the Mosaic authorship of Genesis, which was replaced by the ‘document hypothesis’. But all was not in vain, b/c this frontal attack forced conservative academics to react with actual scholarship, instead of the previous insufficient methods. No longer could one simply footnote an idea without having the background & evidence of the one being cited. No longer could one use the original language unless they admitted the possible alternative interpretations & explained why they chose the exact translation they did. No longer could one genuinely be considered an expert on the subject w/out including the historical culture the text came from; w/ out including the textual criticism that surrounded the text; or w/out thoroughly addressing the theological viewpoints that counteracted one’s own proposal.

From this resurgence within conservative scholarship came a renewed interest in the study of biblical angelology/demonology & a reexamination of the Gen 6 passage itself. The reason for the latter was based on liberal attacks that pinpointed the lack of research offered by conservatives in regard to the difficulty of the original language. The fact is Gen 6:1 does have the capability to set the text off by itself & Gen 6:2 uses language that normally means divine beings (esp when one considers the systematics of the term). Thus liberals used proper hermeneutics as their method—but they inappropriately came to an erroneous conclusion—b/c in the end they insisted that they had somehow confirmed that the Bible had its own kind of ‘pagan mythology’ & how the ‘document hypothesis’ could be proven b/c of the Hebrew construction of Gen 6:1. B/c of this, & the possible implications the passage had on the trustworthiness of Scripture—the Gen 6 debate became prominent among liberals & conservatives alike.
To prove what was just said—I’ll use a quote from Majors-- since you seem to accept him as credible (which is amusing to me-- b/c he & I have the same degrees-lol)—But in regards to how the liberal side used Gen 6, he writes:
“This “explanation” of Genesis 6:1-4 is favored by liberal scholars and the higher critics because the passage can then be rendered mythological and ahistoric. A number of scholars argue that Near Eastern ideas on the assembly of divine beings are rife throughout the Bible, and thus Genesis 6:1-4 is merely a “fragment of mythical narrative” having Ugaritic parallels.17 Speiser traces the “fragment” to Hurrian myths, originating sometime in the second millennium before Christ.18 Similar views are held by Von Rad,19 Graves and Patai,20 Maars, and Dillmann, 21 to name but a few. The common denominator in all of the foregoing works, as alluded to in the introduction, is the unquestioning acceptance of the Documentary Hypothesis. Speiser even ventures that the “final redactor” of Genesis found this passage distasteful, and so toned down the “obvious” mythological connotations.22 Thus, according to these expositors, the passage only appears to be factual and objective because the extraneous fabrications have been removed. It would not occur to these writers that perhaps the Bible’s rendering is based on the original event, and is accurate because of the guidance of the Holy Spirit.”

 

First I hope this shows why studying Gen 6 in depth is truly necessary. It not only has major consequences of biblical demonology—it also has consequences on one’s ability to protect against liberal attacks. Furthermore, I hope this demonstrates that I’m not “imagining” anything, nor am I making anything up! In all honesty, your tone toward my support for the angelic interpretation & the complicated nature of the Gen 6 debate-- comes across as if you assume that I’m standing by myself in a corner trying to convince everyone of this ‘Joseph Smith’ type dream I just had—which is clearly not the case! This is why I kept giving my sources, none of which were simpleton internet searches-- but technical scholarship that has taken years to read, compile, & put together for my PhD thesis. Now if one rejects the angelic interpretation, I can live with that. But I have a problem when someone oversimplifies the issue-- when they have not spent adequate time researching the material for themselves. It is this kind of neglect & lethargic attitude toward real scholarship that allowed Liberal theology to creep in the 1st time & make conservatives look foolish! I should hope we learned our lesson & won’t allow it to happen again!

Now without getting into too much detail—since you assumed I didn’t address your Major paper internet reference (which once again I find humorous b/c I actually have an electronic publication that deals w/ everything he wrote)—But--one of my attacks on Majors was his lack of contemporary resources—go read his footnotes he really has nothing past the 1980’s—I then go on to demonstrate how the study has progressed since then & what biblical evidence is being ignored by not being up to date on the debate. In addition, His evidence for ‘Sethite godliness’ rest on what is said about Seth, Noah, & Enoch not the Sethites as a whole (keep in mind my earlier post). Next although he does address the issue, he does absolutely nothing to explain or prove with clear evidence how Gen 6:2 can be limited to Cainite women when the exact Hebrew term is used Gen 6:1 to mean all of mankind. He simply quotes a very outdated source & says since they say it’s possible to limit, then it must be possible to limit; ie he falls into the footnoting trap that lacks real evidence. (I would refer you to the Sethite K Matthews here, who shows why early papers who ignore this are inadequate—b/c it is not possible to limit the daughters in Gen 6:2 to a particular family.)
Further, Major’s evidence against the angelic view is wanting, although he does mention some things about it—he does not address in detail the evidence that this view really offers (in fact your own observations about matt 22 were better than his b/c you brought up the Sadducee situation & the context—something he failed at miserably). Basically all he does is regurgitate ancient ideas w/ out explaining how angelic advocates have already dealt w/ these problems in detail. if he would have given a point-counterpoint—point-counterpoint—he would have been more effective—but he didn’t—which in turn caused any reader familiar w/ the issue- to feel like they were reading a paper from the 1950’s.
In order to save time-- just go re-read what I briefly wrote in regard to the Sethite view & you’ll notice an outline that disassembles his paper. His primary objective was to attack liberals, which I commend, but in the process he inevitably throws out the baby with the bathwater b/c he sacrifices what can be gained from their research, while at the same time contributing nothing new that would further his own Sethite cause. While I commend his ability to quickly summarize the history of the current debate (at least the liberal side of it)- he honestly has deficient exegesis that ignores modern conservatives, & rest his evidence to heavily on material that has already proven to be inadequate. But for me to go any further—would require about an hour & a half worth of writing & since I would much rather you read him, then outdated material that completely ignores the complexity of the passage as a whole, I’ll just leave it at that. (ie- he’s not a bad starting point for Sethite supporters—but understand there are others much more adequate & detailed then him that could further your cause)
This being said, Since you have shown that you are willing to take a little time & read—I’m going to see what I can find that’s available for free. Most everything I have is in book form or comes from the universities electronic database, so I’m not sure how to post it. But I do know of some scholarly material that is available on the internet (which u might have to paste/copy the link)—for example:
mystudybible.com
was offering the digital version of the NAC for free if you had this code
after you’ve registered (its free to do this)
Enter code SDZ5JHXE3J – must be all caps
Then see:
K Matthews in Gen 1a—he gives Sethite support in his Gen 6 section
T Schreiner in 1 & 2 Pet/jude commentary does a tremendous job defending the angelic view
I am Reformed & I think you are as well—Thomas Schreiner is one of the most recognized Reformed Baptist scholars in the world today—so I think you’ll find his other material interesting as well

http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/gtj/05-1_013.pdf
this is Newman’s article on the history of exegesis—certainly a must read for anyone interested on the Gen 6 debate

And there are many other sources i can give you if your interested

Overall Bib—I have no desire to persuade you of the angelic view—my only aspiration is to get people reading scholarly material on this subject. This in turn will give them the opportunity to see for themselves the complicated nature of this passage & why one cannot bypass the proper interpretation of Gen 6 w/ oversimplified logical deductions. In the end-I’m glad you’ve taken the time to interact w/ me—b/c it has achieved giving the Gen 6 debate the advertising it truly deserves. Hopefully you’ll read the posted links & if you ever want to discuss this topic again- feel free to contact me—God Bless!

 

No, I have not done any post 1990 research in this area. I did extensive personal research in Seminary during the 1980's and then since that time I have taught and preached through Genesis chapter by chapter at least a couple times several times. You may not like my simplistic approach, but I don't like your complex approach when the scriptures are fairly simple to understand. When a person has to spend more time with external Biblical research than direct contact with Scriptures they often go more astray than sticking with the simplicity of the Biblical text and context.

Your extensive explanations create more problems for your position than they resolve as far as I am concerned. Enjoyed our discussion. I also am in my doctoral program, but due to circumstantial factors, I have had to delay it. BTW I have many commentators on my shelf who are not Baptists. Indeed, I intentionally buy the best scholarly books by other denominational scholars simply because I want to be abreast of what is going on. So, the author being a Church of Christ scholar does not bother me as we are not dealing with baptism or salvation in this text. Until next time.