Sons Of God ?

My lips are seal-waxed.

 

Pinoybaptist, we don't turn into angels in glory. Where did you get that idea?

Anyway, Helen, I think there is significance to the title of "sons of Elohim". Moses didn't write "sons of Jehovah", like he would if he was referring to a covenant relationship.

 

Read his post again, carefully, DD. I think you will see that you read it too quickly...

Moses certainly collated and edited Genesis, but he didn't write it. It was written by eyewitnesses to the events. Genesis 6 to verse 9a is from Noah himself. He signs off in 9a. Therefore one would not expect any reference to a covenant relationship. The Noahic covenant came after the Flood. However believers were there all along, albeit in dwindling numbers.

 

The "angel" theology comes directly from catholic teachings retained by the Protestant church/rebellious catholics.

Those who hold to their belief they are angels have not one leg to stand on, much less three.

Oh, you don't know the third leg theology? You mean you never heard of Adam having three sides instead of two? Check it out! Some "theologs", (borrowed terminology), belive the only way Eve could have been formed from Adam was NoT a rib, but God had to have a complete half to cause the cells to split thus forming her.

I sincerely believe anyone who cannot determine, in simple terms, that the "sons of God", in CONTEXT mind you, are the godly line of Seth, I mean, if you follow chronological order! have simply watched too many cartoons and are superstitious to say the least!

Do you really think God would allow fallen angels to come up with heavenly being reproducing with humans and thereby mimmic the Immaculate Conception? Talking about "FAR LEFT OUTFIELD"! ** **

 

Helen, although we disagree about the authorship, I still find significance to "sons of Elohim" versus "sons of Jehovah".

There was a promise of the redeemer in Gen. 3, so a relationship with God could still be built.

I am not certain this is my view. I really like the judges/princes view. Judges are referred to as "sons of God" in the O.T. as well.

QS, try reading 2 Peter and Jude. They each mention angels in the context of unnatural sexual sin. I would recommend you study an issue before you just pop off with more insane posts.

 

You bring up an interesting point, DD. However, the judges are not called sons of Elohim, but they are, rather, refered to as elohim themselves.

Thus, a possible explanation, which I had not thought of before, might be that the sons of the judges and leaders of the antediluvian world married in such a way that their own leadership was badly compromised in terms of godliness. For a reference regarding elohim, please see Exodus 21:6-9. In each case 'judges' is 'elohim'.

And note the following as well, please:

Again, the Jews picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?”

“We are not stoning you for any of these,” replied the Jews, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”

Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are gods’? If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came – and the Scripture cannot be broken – what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’? Do not believe me unless I do what my Father does. But if I do it, even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I am in the Father.”

Again they tried to seize him, but he escaped their grasp.
John 10:31-39


so the elohim, on earth, are evidently those to whom the Word of God was given. Was this true before the Flood? We don't know, but it does give us another possible meaning for 'sons of elohim'.

I often enjoy the way you make me think, DD. God bless.

 

I still prefer to let Bible explain Bible. Human 'sons of God' are always believers. Mixed marriages are spoken against, in terms of believer to unbeliever, from start to finish. We do not need to figure some genetic line is godly while another isn't. That is completely against the message of the Bible, including the lineage of Christ! Nor do we need to figure some strange human-non-human mutants were involved anywhere. Methinks those who believe this have been too deeply immersed in science fiction and Superman stories for too long... [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]Thanks Helen, I've often heard both arguments from the pulpit, but never have i heard it explained the way you did. You make sense

Talking about science fiction, how about this half-baked Idea: Some Christians build a time machine and travel back to pre-noahic times. They have relationships with the women, then travel back to where they came from.

DON'T GET ME WRONG I DON'T BELIEVE THIS!! I'm just trying to add some humor to this subject.

 

Quote from Daniel David's last post:

"I am not certain this is my view."

How is anyone supposed to consider a statement steeped in such irrationality to credit the author of this outlandish banter as this credible?

DD, If you're not certain what your view is on the matter, then you best follow your own advice.

May I suggest you take the time to do a little study of the word "son". Exhaust your "best" Hebrew and Greek lexicons and you'll NEVER find it defined as angels as so many have tried to "force" that meaning into the verses containing the "sons of God" phrase.

Of course the "arguement" goes that the phrase needs defining to conclude that "sons" are angels, that's LUDRICOUS. How can a phrase containing a root word mean something contrary to it's "root" meaning?

Then again, you are "not sure of your view"!


(if this "graemlin" had the ability to roll back and forth, it would portray the image of me rolling in the floor laughing!)

It's funny though, I had a Sunday School teacher give his view these were angels and challenging anyone in the class to prove otherwise. When I went through the lexicons and reported the meaning of "son" he got real mad and put on a real show of "christian" behaviour.

Naa-naa,na-naa,na. You should understand your "native" tongue.

 

QP, that was entirely unnecessary. DD is a student, first of all, and secondly, we are all entitled to keep exploring and it is extremely admirable for anyone to admit he doesn't know everything yet and is still working on an issue.

If you have everything decided in your mind, chances are you are wrong. I find that the older I get, the more I find I DON'T know and there have been some rather fundamental areas of ideas in my life that have changed in the past ten or fifteen years. Not my salvation, but there are a lot of areas of life apart from that which I have been wrong about, but it took a lot of time and experience and, in some cases, flat out study, to learn enough about to know I was wrong.

I taught for almost 30 years. I often learned more from my students than I think they learned from me. But I hope I taught them how to think. Part of thinking is being courteous to other people's ideas and admissions of fallibility. DD mentioned something which put me on a new track, as I think my post shows. When I ran it past my husband, who IS a Bible scholar, he stopped, thought about it, and admitted I might be right.

Hey...that's worth all kinds of time thinking!

In other words, show some Christian character, not just language expertise, please.

=============

Tiny Tim...thanks. Appreciate the appreciation!

 

perhaps the idea that fallen angels(demons) were inhabiting some of the sons of Seth is not too far fetched! And the Bible DOES refer to angels in instances as sons of God. BTW, where does the idea of "there were giants in the earth" fit in if not by super-natural means?
Also the question that arose,.. Do you think God would allow a false copy of the virgin birth, the answer is simple!Satan has a counterfiet for everything Christ has, what makes you think the virgin birth would be any different?
And, BTW, these are just ideas, we will know for sure when we get to Heaven,this is one of those no-win situations!
In Christ,
Peggy

 

I agree with Helen. The context of "Sons of God" is "believers" in this case.

 

The word "Jehovah" doesn't appear anywhere in the Bible. It's a bastardized miscompilation of the words "Jahweh" and "Elohim". It has no place in translations or on the lips of believers. I cringe whenever I hear a preacher use it.

 

John, get a grip. We don't say Yeshua, we say Jesus. It is a western usage of the word.

 

1. I am uncertain in the sense that I think there are two valid views, of which I gave. I think either can be true according to the Scripture. Only one of them is actually true, but the Scriptures do not explicitly say who they are. Please pay attention.

2. Note the following:

Job 1:6 - Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came among them.

Again, you have "sons of Elohim" in the context of angels in an Old Testament text. Given that Job was probably the first book written (if Job wrote it), or a book written with the books of the Law (if Moses wrote it). If Moses wrote it, it would lend credence to the similarity in language. If it was Job, that might have been an ancient way of referring to the angels. Either way, it is ANOTHER O.T. text with the identical phrase talking about angels.

Job 38:4-7

4 Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Tell Me, if you have understanding.
5 Who determined its measurements? Surely you know! Or who stretched the line upon it?
6 To what were its foundations fastened? Or who laid its cornerstone,
7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

You have the "sons of Elohim" again here. Now, if I was to believe QS here, I would have to believe that believers were present at creation. Very credible. I guess you missed these two crystal clear texts in your little study.

As also has been pointed out, in Psalm 82:6, we read the following:

I said, "You are gods, and all of you are children of the Most High."

You have another reference to "sons of Elohim" (you are gods... you are children...).

Perhaps the flood was a result of the corruption of those to whom God endowed with a ruling kind of authority and it brought the world into further corruption and wickedness.

 

Helen,

Daniel David knows I am just poking fun at him while provoking him to stop and think. Afterall, he thinks I don't understand the subject, have come to unfounded conclusions. You know what? I think he thinks that I really don't think, but then again he seems to think that I am thinking about soemthing totally irrelevant to the thinking he's doing while I am thinking he is irrelevantly thinking I am not paying attention to what he obviously thinks I think. So what do you think? Do you think I think he doesn't think I think? Or maybe you think he thinks I think he thinks.


Daniel david, "morning stars" singing?

I believe what has happened through history of conjecture regarding Biblical accounts has damaged ones ability to rationalize reality.

I guess I'm just too much of a realist. Is that really possible? Possible to really be too realistic? (I'm getting tickled at myself!)

 

Thanks for ignoring the text and demonstrating that your theory with no holes is really more like a noodle strainer.

 

You're welcome.

 

And this is the way Christian discussions are conducted? You guys ought to be ashamed of yourselves. People read here, and when you claim the name of Christian and your attitude toward others is so much like the world, how will anyone know that we are Christians? ... by our love?

I am deeply ashamed of much of what goes on here on BB, and the above exchanges are good examples of why. It is one thing to stand up for a point of view, and another to run down one another either as a 'joke' or seriously.

That off my chest, I would like to respond to a few things that have been said:

First of all, to Peggy:
You wrote, perhaps the idea that fallen angels(demons) were inhabiting some of the sons of Seth is not too far fetched! And the Bible DOES refer to angels in instances as sons of God. BTW, where does the idea of "there were giants in the earth" fit in if not by super-natural means?
Also the question that arose,.. Do you think God would allow a false copy of the virgin birth, the answer is simple!Satan has a counterfiet for everything Christ has, what makes you think the virgin birth would be any different?
And, BTW, these are just ideas, we will know for sure when we get to Heaven,this is one of those no-win situations!

Peggy, giantism is an inherited trait. To this day we have the Zulus who AVERAGE well over six feet in height and often reach close to seven or more. And then there are the Pygmies, the little folk who are little not by way of a mutation, but because that is their natural genetic heritage. In the case of Genesis, 'giants' can refer to two possibilities, and maybe both together. It can refer to physical size, or it can refer to someone's authority or the respect others feel for him. When we speak of someone we deeply respect for his moral character and leadership, we sometimes hear "He was a giant among men," or a similar phrase.

So don't think comic book giant, or fairy story giant. Think very large human being or very morally upright leadership. I kind of think it was the former that Genesis is referring to, but I may be wrong. It certainly would not be the first time!

As far as the counterfeit virgin bith, yes, that did happen, but it would not be applicable to the multiple marriages (which does not denote virgin, by the way!) before the Flood which were said to be between the sons of God (or sons of elohim, which may have simply meant the sons of those to whom the Word of God had been given), and the daughters of men. The counterfeit virgin is still celebrated in Roman Catholicism although they have named her Mary. The RC mother goes back far before Mary to the wife of Nimrod, Semiramis. Her story was traced very carefully by Hislop in his book "Two Babylons" which is not on the net here:
http://philologos.org/__eb-ttb/default.htm

I think you might be very interested in the first three or four chapters of this book.

To Daniel David:
Mind your manners. Johnv is right. Jehovah is a combination of the letters found in the Tetragrammaton and the vowels in Elohim in its original. Jehovah is an entirely made up word. However Jesus is the TRANSLATION of Y'shua into another language. That is quite different.


To QuickeningSpirit
You really need to learn more before you start mocking the Bible:
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/starsgalaxies/black_hole_sound.html

You are not too much of a realist; you are too much of a believer in human wisdom I think, over and above that of the Bible. The Bible really does know what it is talking about...

When you understand that, then you will really be a realist.

 

I'm sorry, mommy, I've been a baaaaaaaaaaddd boy!

You jump on us and then turn right around and do the same exact thing you JUST jumped on us for.

When I read the rules to BB I saw where we were to all expect this type of behaviour. Did you read the rules?

Helen, I don't appreciate you accusing me of "mocking" the Word of God, and by so-doing, you have dictated to me and denied my right to interpet what I distinctly see in the Word of God.

Thanks, Hon', but you'll never pastor my church.

There are many unexplainable passages of Scripture, simply put it would be too wonderful for even the most intellectual of beings, but we were discussing views on the passage of Genesis 6.

I strongly hold to the "First mention principle", and I can read in the context preceding in Gen 5 that the line of Seth is being indicated. Now it has always amazed me how it is that some jump from the subject matter of humans to angelic beings so quickly, then to a fantastic view of "giants"/men of renown, get that? "MEN" of renown?

Were there only "men" born to this described union? Please elaborate, you certainly run your mouth as much as I do.

The wink was NOT transgenderly sexual, or otherwise, just having good Christian fun!O.K.?