|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Gen 6:1-4 - Who are these SONS OF GOD
|
ByHisBlood
Shipmate
# 16018
|
Posted
Amplified Version
WHEN MEN began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them, The sons of God saw that the daughters of men were fair, and they took wives of all they desired and chose.
Then the Lord said, My Spirit shall not forever dwell and strive with man, for he also is flesh; but his days shall yet be 120 years.
There were giants on the earth in those days--and also afterward--when the sons of God lived with the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.
--------------------
"Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him" - Romans 5:9
Posts: 220 | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
ByHisBlood
Shipmate
# 16018
|
Posted
For your reference we read elsewhere in the OT of the Sons of God:-
Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, Satan also came among them (Job 1:6).
Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came among them to present himself before the Lord (Job 2:1).
When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? (Job 38:7, Psalm 89:6; Daniel 3:25).
--------------------------------------------------
Now Barnabas has given us his take on these individuals and I'm sure he will continue to do so here, yet how do you view this 'Giant' area of scripture?
[ 10. December 2010, 10:35: Message edited by: ByHisBlood ]
--------------------
"Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him" - Romans 5:9
Posts: 220 | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Just to clarify, this is a spin off from Purg at my suggestion here. There is some other discussion earlier in the thread which Shipmates may find worth reviewing.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Parsimoniously they are men.
Not incubi.
And there is NO tie up with I Peter 3:18-20
Unless it is by way of the esoteric, occult, pseudepigraphia of Enoch I.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ByHisBlood
Shipmate
# 16018
|
Posted
So what/ who do YOU say that passage in 1 Peter is speaking about?
--------------------
"Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him" - Romans 5:9
Posts: 220 | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ByHisBlood:
So what/ who do YOU say that passage in 1 Peter is speaking about?
The Harrowing of Hell.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
The Hebrew for "sons of God" is the same in all three scriptures quoted in the first two posts. It is "ben elohim".
There seems very little doubt that the author of Job sees the visitors whom Satan accompanies into the presence of God as heavenly beings. The implication that the author of Job is talking about fallen angels here seems quite reasonable to me. The whole story of Job is about God allowing suffering to happen to a good man. And the beginning of the story is intended to show that Satan and his minions were responsible for that suffering. Therefore, in that context, it seems perfectly proper to take "ben elohim" to mean "created heavenly beings". Their fallenness is I think obvious from the discourse.
In Genesis 6:1-4, the picture is by no means so clear. The point of the story is the prelude to the consequences of the spread of human sinfulness. Even in context, it may be illustrative of that spread, not in any way meant to be taken as primary cause.
So God sees the great wickedness (Gen 6:5) and repents of making human beings (Gen 6:6). All of which is a preamble to the story of the flood, and Noah's Ark. Now from archealogical evidence (particularly around the Black Sea) it seems clear that there was at least one major and catastrophic flood in that area and no doubt such an event was buried deep into the human consciousness. And as in Job, the question of the suffering of the blameless was no doubt in the air. So the use of "ben elohim" in this context to mean "bad angels" does seem quite likely. "It's them fallen angels again".
But it might also be an ironic touch from the author. Those who were thought wrongly to be "sons of God" i.e. semi-divine royalties, or other purveyors of bad religion. In short the author may simply have been using the ancient Babylonian myth to say "look, this is what you get when the people of God breed with folks meshed in power, or materialism, or wrong religion".
So although it there is a verbal identity, I'm not sure one can so far as to say that the different human authors/editors both meant the same thing by "ben elohim".
And of course, even if they did, that identity does not rule out the possibility of midrash, edifying story, being used in both cases to make a point about the conundrums of sin and the suffering of the faithful.
Short version. Verbal identity does not prove semantic identity. Ever.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ByHisBlood
Shipmate
# 16018
|
Posted
Barnabus quote:
So although it there is a verbal identity, I'm not sure one can so far as to say that the different human authors/editors both meant the same thing by "ben elohim".
Indeed, but what about the one Divine 'Author', what about His insight? After all, if we were simply relying on the human author, how could Moses have written Genesis 3v15 on his own, or Micah write 5v2 of his book, and indeed Isaiah chapter 53 of his? Another good example would be David writing about Crucifixion at least 700 years before anyone else had heard of that form of death. In any case, only God Himself could have identified these creatures in Genesis 6, and He doesn't do mistakes.
--------------------
"Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him" - Romans 5:9
Posts: 220 | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ByHisBlood:
Barnabus quote:
So although it there is a verbal identity, I'm not sure one can so far as to say that the different human authors/editors both meant the same thing by "ben elohim".
Indeed, but what about the one Divine 'Author', what about His insight?
That's irrelevant, surely. Just because the Divine Author inspired all the scriptures doesn't mean that everybody in them who used the same word or phrase meant the same thing by it.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
mousethief is of course right. Text must always be taken in context. Exegetics 101.
What's unreasonable about my specific contextual arguments?
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
I answered that on your previous thread.
And it's NOTHING to do with the harrowing of hell.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Bollocks.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
And BSB
I Peter 3:18-20 is very simple to understand:
YL[iteral]T
18 because also Christ once for sin did suffer -- righteous for unrighteous -- that he might lead us to God, having been put to death indeed, in the flesh, and having been made alive in the spirit,
19 in which also to the spirits in prison having gone he did preach,
20 who sometime disbelieved, when once the long-suffering of God did wait, in days of Noah -- an ark being preparing -- in which few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water;
21 also to which an antitype doth now save us -- ...
Christ ... having been made alive in the spirit
-- in which also to the spirits in prison
---- who sometime disbelieved
-- having gone he did preach, when once the long-suffering of God did wait, in days of Noah
also to which an antitype doth now save us
[in other words]
Jesus, who was made alive in the spirit after His death,
-- the spirit in which He had previously, 3000 years before at the time of The Flood,
---- (where they had been since their pre-Edenic disobedience in disbelief)
-- preached to the demons in their place of restraint
saves.
No other interpretation makes sense. At all.
The spirits were imprisoned in Tartarus, the Abyss prior to creation and have never been let out. Certainly not to incarnate as genetic men and breed with women. They did not disobey at the time of the Flood. And they aren't humans who did and died up to and/or in The Flood and they aren't humans alive at the time of The Flood whom Jesus preached to by proxy through Noah.
Neither did Jesus 'harrow hell' whilst He was dead or after His resurrection.
Unless you want to proliferate all of those entities.
Why?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ByHisBlood:
Indeed, but what about the one Divine 'Author', what about His insight? After all, if we were simply relying on the human author, how could Moses have written Genesis 3v15 on his own, or Micah write 5v2 of his book, and indeed Isaiah chapter 53 of his? Another good example would be David writing about Crucifixion at least 700 years before anyone else had heard of that form of death. In any case, only God Himself could have identified these creatures in Genesis 6, and He doesn't do mistakes.
[tangent from study of verses]
I suppose this means you give no credence to the idea that the Pentateuch, in the form we have it, is post-exilic, though quite possibly based on both earlier documents and oral traditions safeguarded during the Exile in Babylon?
Or the idea that Isaiah 53 was written by Second Isaiah, an unknown prophet of the Exile who sought to be faithful to the Isaianic prophetic tradition.
Or ...
But I guess I already know the answers. Let's just take Moses.
If the heading says Moses then the entire content must not only come from him while he was alive. Even the bits where he died. Deut 34. Pretty self serving if he wrote that prophetically while he was alive. Verses 10-12 are clearly a "long afterwards" editorial comment. Aren't they? So if there was editorial comment there (by context long after the event of his death), then why not other editorial comment, or collection, elsewhere in the Pentateuch?
Perhaps the headings of the original manuscripts made it clear. Oh we don't have the original manuscripts. No but it is a [b]traditional claim{/b] attached to some copies/translations. But not to the NIV translation for example.
Saying that Moses wrote the Pentateuch makes you a traditionalist, BHB. The earliest texts we have render the author(s) anonymous. At least I think they do. At least this very conservative source says so. It contains this handy little quote.
quote:
The bottom line is that, working only with the best evidence available, the OT authors almost “A-to-Z” must be viewed as anonymous. The authority of the ancient sources and the integrity of the writers who drew upon them to compile the Hebrew Scriptures are not diminished by this formal anonymity.
Well there you go! You see, you really can't say for sure that Moses wrote it all, because the evidence isn't there. But you can conjecture, conservatively, that the tradition is right. Quite happy for you to do that. Just don't present it as a certainty, that's all.
[/tangent from study of verses]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
I answered that on your previous thread.
And it's NOTHING to do with the harrowing of hell.
Martin, just to clarify, who was this addressed to. BHB and mousethief? Can't think it was me.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Perish the thought!
He who has eyes to hear let him speak Barnabas62.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
BHB, you may or may not know about the Documentary Hypothesis, which is the most accepted explanation of the origins of the Pentateuch among Biblical scholars.
Zach
[ 11. December 2010, 00:06: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
I thought the documentary hypothesis was falling out of favour?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
I hadn't heard anything about that, though no doubt there are scholars out there who do disagree. Most of the debate centers on what the sources of the Pentateuch might be, not whether or not the Pentateuch is a redaction of several different works. Even so, J,E,D and P are the most commonly accepted sources.
Zach
[ 11. December 2010, 00:54: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by ByHisBlood:
Barnabus quote:
So although it there is a verbal identity, I'm not sure one can so far as to say that the different human authors/editors both meant the same thing by "ben elohim".
Indeed, but what about the one Divine 'Author', what about His insight?
That's irrelevant, surely. Just because the Divine Author inspired all the scriptures doesn't mean that everybody in them who used the same word or phrase meant the same thing by it.
.and this is a nifty segue, which I am providing for the benefit of the still fairly new By His Blood, to this bit from our Board Guidelines as located at the top of the board:
quote:
6. Inerrancy, infallibility, etc.
This is emphatically not the place for arguing about the authority and reliability of the Bible. However, reasoned discussions of the authorship and dating of particular passages are acceptable.
So far the discussion seems to be only hovering around inerrancy/ infallibility territory, but if anyone wants to pursue that subject further, I encourage you to check out the Dead Horses board, where it is enthusiastically discussed. Please see the Dead Horse board guidelines as to what constitutes a Dead Horse.
(And as I checked-- gee whiz! Barnabas62 opened a new shiny thread right here! )
Kelly Alves,
Kerygmania Host
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Ah well, I guess that in this case, Kelly, the only place for serious debate with BHB is in Dead Horses. The overt inerrantism gets played as the Ace of trumps over all of our speculative twos of clubses. Its a bit hard to discuss and debate any verses of scripture when that keeps on happening. And you know, I can see it from his POV as well.
Pity really, it's an interesting scripture if one is prepared to lay the spectacles down for a while and just look at the text.
The Wellhausen tangent is interesting - I think the literary analysis debate has moved on. Might well be a good subject for discussion here. It is primarily about the formation of the biblical text. Maybe a separate thread here?
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
BSB's inerrancy means wooden literalism and maximum imparsimony, so trumps NOWT.
I'm inerrantist - conservative - in that where the sense, the meaning, the first level of interpretation is that God acted in the way described - i.e. uncompromisingly bloodily, lethally, violently, with no consideration of civil rights and health and safety regulations - He did.
That is in the SAME spirit of faithful, orthodox, pragmatic, parsimony as is EASILY applied to Genesis 6:1-4 and I Peter 3:18-20.
BSB has UTTERLY failed to interpret I Peter 3:18-20 AT ALL.
Mousethief just trots out the Augustinean age heterodoxy not claiming inerrancy but the intellectually and faithfully vapid and spurious 'respectability' of 'tradition'.
So I would suggest that there is MUCH kerygmatic milage here still.
With fruitful tangents on the nature and psychology of inerrant and traditional epistemologies.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
Many people, I think, accept that the first eleven chapters of Genesis are not intended to be taken literally.
According to this thinking there was not literally a garden with two people in it with magic trees and a talking snake. There was not literally a flood and a man who filled a boat with all the animal species in the world. Languages did not literally come into being when people in Babylon decided to build a tower.
In my tradition these ancient narratives are understood to have had symbolic meaning to the people who composed them. They describe in a simple and colorful way the spiritual history of the human race.
According to this understanding, the frequent mention of "sons" and "daughters" allude to the progress of faith and love. "Sons" are mentioned more frequently and emphasized because beliefs are more tangible than love is, even though love is actually more important. The terms are also neutral, and so the "sons" and "daughter" are blessed or wicked depending on their modifiers.
In this case all that is being said is that faith and love came together in negative ways. False faith was mixed with evil desires and produced bad results:
quote:
Genesis 6:1 Now it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them, 2 that the sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves of all whom they chose.
3 And the LORD said, “My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, for he is indeed flesh; yet his days shall be one hundred and twenty years.” 4 There were giants on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.
There is no need to see the "sons of God" as angels. The term just refers to the progress of faith. The context makes it clear that what should have been good and from God was not good, and instead was opposed to God. The "sons of God" are literally simply people, as if what is being said is that "God's people turned away from Him."
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Blessed are the cheesemakers.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselm
Shipmate
# 4499
|
Posted
My understanding is that the reference to "sons of God" in Gen 6 has to do with people - in particular the "righteous line" descended from Seth - and their intermarriage with the descendants of the "unrighteous line" from Cain.
This seems particularly so given the language of the genealogy in Gen 5 quote:
1 This is the written account of Adam’s family line.
When God created mankind, he made them in the likeness of God. 2 He created them male and female and blessed them. And he named them “Mankind”[a] when they were created.
3 When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth.
As for the JEPD hypothesis - I thought that it had fallen out of favour because it was perceived to not bear up under detailed analysis?
Certainly, ISTM that its big weakness was that it failed to do justice to the text as it was before us - as soon as you come to something that doesn't quite make sense, the temptation is to find fault (quite literally) with the text rather than our ability to understand it. Tied in with this, it seem to treat the editor (if one indeed did exist) as a complete idiot, who blindly stitched pieces of text together for no reason.
The more recent 'literary' approaches seem to have been far more fruitful as an approach to the text as far as I can see.
--------------------
carpe diem domini
...seize the day to play dominoes?
Posts: 2544 | From: The Scriptorium | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anselm:
As for the JEPD hypothesis - I thought that it had fallen out of favour because it was perceived to not bear up under detailed analysis?
Agreed.
AFAICS the only reason it hangs around at all is due to the many OT Professors who did their PhD based on it as an assumption.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adam.
Like as the
# 4991
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anselm:
As for the JEPD hypothesis - I thought that it had fallen out of favour because it was perceived to not bear up under detailed analysis?
Why do you say that? It's certainly how we're still taught out here at Notre Dame and what pretty much everything I read in things like CBQ works with. Pulling four commentaries off my shelf it's the view of the New Jerome (Catholic); Harper Collins (ecumenical); Gottwald (Lutheran) and Brettler (Jewish).
--------------------
Ave Crux, Spes Unica!
Preaching blog
Posts: 8164 | From: Notre Dame, IN | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Again Anselm, an understanding too far.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
Like Hart, it's still taught here at Boston College, and it's in every commentary I've laid my hands on- even the most recent ones.
The Documentary Hypothesis is still accepted, but what is changing is that the redactors are being given more credit for knowing whay they were doing. The end result of the text is being examined as having some coherence and religious effect on the reader. The Documentary Hypothesis is being modified, not discarded altogether.
Zach
[ 11. December 2010, 13:54: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adam.
Like as the
# 4991
|
Posted
I don't know if this would be better done in a different thread, by my reading of current scholarly trends is similar to Zach's. There definitely are changes afoot, but they're not really questioning the truth of the basics of JEDP. What's happening is people are questioning whether source critical analysis is what they want to be spending their time on. Someone like Childs (AFIAK) still accepts the hypothesis as true, but basically uninteresting -- he's interested in the text as in the final canonical version. Canonical criticism doesn't seem to be taking aim at the truth of the accepted source critical analysis, but rather its relevance for theology.
Also, of course, attribution of certain individual passages continues to be up for debate, and finer divisions of redaction are proposed and debated (in my Intro to Hebrew Scripture we distinguished D1 and D2 pretty clearly, but left P as one 'black box.' I understand many scholars are trying to break P down more).
--------------------
Ave Crux, Spes Unica!
Preaching blog
Posts: 8164 | From: Notre Dame, IN | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Blessed are the cheesemakers.
Because?
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
Y'all quit throwing paper planes and get back to the topic.
Kelly Alves
Kerygmania Host
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anselm:
My understanding is that the reference to "sons of God" in Gen 6 has to do with people - in particular the "righteous line" descended from Seth - and their intermarriage with the descendants of the "unrighteous line" from Cain.
This seems particularly so given the language of the genealogy in Gen 5 quote:
1 This is the written account of Adam’s family line.
When God created mankind, he made them in the likeness of God. 2 He created them male and female and blessed them. And he named them “Mankind”[a] when they were created.
3 When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth.
You are right in that this is an explanation often taught, but it is not the only one, The following summary uses footnotes to the NIV study bible, with some additional material from the Purg discussion and the commentary on Genesis in Peake.
quote:
1. "Sons of God" (Gen 6:2) = fallen angels (since ben elohim seems clearly enough to mean that in Job 1 & 2) That is what BHB believes.
2. Whatever the meaning, view 1 is excluded by the very nature of the created order. Angels are not created to beget. That, in part, is my view.
3. The intermarriage of Sethites (men) and Cainites (women). That is your view
4. Sons of God refers to royal figures or descendants (Babylon), thought according to myths and legends to be divine/semi-divine. That is the view of Samuel Hooke, who wrote the Genesis commentary in Peake's Bible commentary, who is comfortable with the Genesis editor incorporating saga and myth for theological illumination (these are the reasons why God did the flood).
Anselm, the issue discussed in Purg, against the somewhat arcane setting of UFO speculation (I kid you not) was "which is best?".
I think you will prefer the textual territory so, on textual grounds, why prefer option 3 over option 1?
And how do you see the Nephilim in v 4. The fallen angel hypothesis sees them as angel/women hybrids (I kid you not again) which is why they were giants. "Strange" DNA, you see - or maybe you don't?
[I say I do not like option 1 on theological grounds, think option 2 is by far the best on theological grounds, don't think much of option 3 on textual grounds, and am very happy with option 4 on literary-critical grounds!
And I'm going to leave JEDP out of it, because the Wellhausen hypothesis (and its children) are another story!]
Anyway, over to you. I know you to be a solid performer here in Keryg and I've found you've always got good stuff to say.
[ 11. December 2010, 19:09: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
So I would suggest that there is MUCH kerygmatic milage here still.
Perhaps.
quote:
With fruitful tangents on the nature and psychology of inerrant and traditional epistemologies.
NO. If you have any opinions on the the nature and psychology of inerrant and traditional epistemologies, start a spin-off thread in Dead Horses.
It's the difference between saying "This approach is hard to apply to this verse because..." and saying "this approach is generally troublesome because..." As long as I see that people are talking about this particular story, and are quoting sources that have insight about that story, all is good.
And seriously? Any more questions need to be taken up in the Styx. I don't like hashing these things out on the thread any more that any of the other hosts do.
Kelly Alves
Kerygmania Host
[ETA: See Barnabas62's post above for an excellent example of What To Do.]
[ 11. December 2010, 19:19: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Miss Lovelace
Apprentice
# 15986
|
Posted
The opening Bible reference had in it:
quote:
There were giants on the earth in those days--and also afterward-
Maybe this has been discussed in other places, and if so please let me know. But for me, now, I'm wondering who these giants were, and are they being seen as a different species from the sons of God. Its a puzzling passage for me.
--------------------
You are welcome to read our church blog.
Posts: 5 | From: Trumpton | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Miss Lovelace:
The opening Bible reference had in it:
quote:
There were giants on the earth in those days--and also afterward-
Maybe this has been discussed in other places, and if so please let me know. But for me, now, I'm wondering who these giants were, and are they being seen as a different species from the sons of God. Its a puzzling passage for me.
Happy to take an amateurish swing at that! Here is a list of various translations of Genesis 6:4 into English. Which kind of raises a lot of questions, such as
1. Why are there such variations in translation?
2. Who or what are the Nephilim?
3. Are they giants, or are they mighty men, or are they both?
There appears to be a very interesting story behind these variations, and you are not the only one who finds the passage puzzling.
Coming up now is an online resource, the Blue Letter Bible. And here is how Genesis 6:4 looks within that. Blue letter Bible link to Genesis 4.
Click on the link and you will see that the Hebrew text for the first word is "nephiyl" - and that in the King James version that is translated as giants. Whereas in later versions, like the New International Version it is transliterated as Nephilim.
The translation in the King James version needs a bit of explaining! There is a version of the Old Testament translated from the Hebrew into the Greek over 2,000 years ago, called the Septuagint. And in the Septuagint, the Hebrew "nephiyl" is rendered in the Greek as "gigantes"! Which looks like "giants" but was originally a term used to describe a legendary group of 100 specific warriors who were indeed giants! Exactly how the word "nephiyl" in the Hebrew got translated as "gigantes" in the Greek seems to be a bit of a mystery! But that appears to be where the giants came in. I'm not quite sure how or why the translators of the KJV used the "gigantes" from the Septuagint in their translation into English. Perhaps they thought it better to rely on the Septuagint - at least it used a word people could understand in English.
And if that doesn't confuse you enough, if "giants" might not be right, what then is the meaning of "nephiyl" in the Hebrew? Here you can get some clues yourself. Go back to the Blue Letter Bible link and click on the Strongs number h5303 beside the word and you will get the following "helpful" guidance. "The etymology is uncertain". Which basically means translators have different opinions about what the word means! Which, I guess, is why the modern translators use "nephilim". There are various assessments of its meaning, one of which is "fallen ones". And there the speculation begins in earnest. Some of which you can find in the link to the Purgatory thread in my first post here.
If you have followed all of that you've done well! And it leads me to a nice straightforward answer. I don't think we can say for sure who or what the Nephilim were and we don't know for sure whether they were supposed to be giants. So this basic research gives you a nice double negative!
A health warning at this point. I'm not a scholar about ancient texts - I've just used the online resources and told you what they tell me. There may well be far better scholars than me who can do a more refined job. But that looks to be a reasonable basic picture of what we can glean from these ancient texts.
Calling any Hebrew and/or Septuagint Greek scholars to the party!
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Ms. Alves. Your servant ma'am. And my apologies.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Miss Lovelace:
The opening Bible reference had in it:
quote:
There were giants on the earth in those days--and also afterward-
Maybe this has been discussed in other places, and if so please let me know. But for me, now, I'm wondering who these giants were, and are they being seen as a different species from the sons of God. Its a puzzling passage for me.
I think it's a reference to the last of the Neanderthals.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Hmm. Think I've heard something about that. Googling produced these links.
Here is a sceptical view of that. That contains a link to a note it criticises.
And, for good measure, here is another paper asserting Neanderthals = Nephalim.
Freddy, following Kelly's strictures, I don't want to introduce another Dead Horse here i.e creation/evolution on top of biblical inerrancy. But I wondered if you had a different source in mind?
Nailing my colours to the mast, I'm with the sceptics. Regardless of one's views of the very scant biblical evidence (and YMMV on that), the science really doesn't stack up with such speculative and to my mind fanciful theories.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ByHisBlood
Shipmate
# 16018
|
Posted
Barnabas quote:
And it leads me to a nice straightforward answer. I don't think we can say for sure who or what the Nephilim were and we don't know for sure whether they were supposed to be giants
Given that a shipmate insisted that Wiki was a helpful tool at times, this is from the same:-
The fallen angels interpretation
The New American Bible commentary draws a parallel to the Epistle of Jude and the statements set forth in Genesis, suggesting that the Epistle refers implicitly to the paternity of Nephilim as heavenly beings who came to earth and had sexual intercourse with women.[21] The footnotes of the Jerusalem Bible suggest that the Biblical author intended the Nephilim to be an "anecdote of a superhuman race".[22] Genesis 6:4 implies that the Nephilim have inhabited the earth in at least two different time periods—in antediluvian times "and afterward." If the Nephilim were supernatural beings themselves, or at least the progeny of supernatural beings, it is possible that the "giants of Canaan" in Book of Numbers 13:33 were the direct descendants of the antediluvian Nephilim, or were fathered by the same supernatural parents.
Some Christian commentators have argued against this view,[23] citing Jesus' statement that angels do not marry.[24] Others believe that Jesus was only referring to angels in heaven.[25] -
LINK
Barnabas,
You made the point that the angels were not created to procreate, and indeed that is true, yet humans were not created to sin, so why did they?
--------------------
"Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him" - Romans 5:9
Posts: 220 | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ByHisBlood:
Barnabas,
You made the point that the angels were not created to procreate, and indeed that is true, yet humans were not created to sin, so why did they?
Looks like a category error to me BHB. Human beings were made capable of sin because of the capacity for freewill built into them. Sin was a matter of choice. Procreation, however, is a matter of choice and capability. The argument is that angels were created without the capability to procreate, because in the heavenly order, they did not need it.
Sure it is a logical argument, but it is actually a simple inference from what Jesus said in Mark 12:25.
"When the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven."
Which is why, as you know, most evangelicals have taken it that way. Including, as I evidenced, Dr Billy Graham.
The position you are adopting is just too speculative about Gen 6:1-4 and its related connections in scripture. After giving this some thought, I now feel that it really doesn't matter whether you take an inerrantist position or not. I don't think the biblical material will bear the weight you put on it. It's speculative, leading to some extremely far-fetched conclusions. It encourages whack-job theories.
[ 12. December 2010, 07:35: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ByHisBlood
Shipmate
# 16018
|
Posted
Barnabas quote:
The argument is that angels were created without the capability to procreate, because in the heavenly order, they did not need it.
Sure, yet if man had been created IN HEAVEN, do you think he would have needed the ability to procreate, of course not, and neither will he need that ability when he arrives there either. But Genesis 6 occurs on a fallen world with fallen and unfallen Angels, who make regular visits and still do. After all, The Eternal Word of God even changed His form to enter this scene.
So who are you or I to say what abilities Angels IN THE FLESH (not their created form) will or will not have. Yet the evidence AFTER Genesis 6 we do have. And to date, none of the suggestions offered (outside of fallen angels) give a reason for the extraordinary offspring that appeared on both sides of the Flood.
Anyway, I'm off to Slumberland to order my 13 foot bed (in case we have visitors later) on the way to Church, catch you tonight, God willing.
--------------------
"Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him" - Romans 5:9
Posts: 220 | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ByHisBlood:
Barnabas quote:
The argument is that angels were created without the capability to procreate, because in the heavenly order, they did not need it.
Sure, yet if man had been created IN HEAVEN, do you think he would have needed the ability to procreate, of course not, and neither will he need that ability when he arrives there either. But Genesis 6 occurs on a fallen world with fallen and unfallen Angels, who make regular visits and still do. After all, The Eternal Word of God even changed His form to enter this scene.
There you go again. It's tedious to repeat this but you assume the outcome of a particular debate favours you. I agree that there are pre and post incarnation appearances in scripture of God and of angels. Theophanies, Christophanies, Angelophanies. Appearances do not confirm assumption of form. The instance of form that we can be sure of is the Incarnation, within which Jesus took on the form of a servant. The Word became flesh. He did not appear as flesh. He took on the form.
Everything else is purely about interpretation.
quote:
So who are you or I to say what abilities Angels IN THE FLESH (not their created form) will or will not have.
Sorry? I cannot express an opinion of meaning based on the words of scripture? An opinion many many have shared?
BTW, on that point, I'd say the great majority to judge from the Wiki link, my own experience over 40 years and even the Chuck Missler video. If this angel theory was normal amongst evangelicals he could have started there in his presentation. But he made a point of saying that it isn't taught in seminaries. Have you ever asked why that is?
Kelly, with apologies for this but I feel I must speak plainly at this point. And with apologies to BHB for the presumption of giving direct advice.
I believe you have responsibility for the cure and care of souls? I'm retired from church leadership for a number of years now, so I don't. But I must tell you plainly, I would not feed them this theory and argue that it comes conclusively from scripture i.e. it is its plain and only possible meaning. James 3 tells us that those of us who teach will be judged with greater severity.
In that respect, of course, you are free to do as your conscience tells you. I fully recognise and respect that freedom. I am simply saying that I believe it to be most unwise to use that freedom in this way. The theory seems to me to open the door to unbridled speculations of all kinds which will have the very real danger of taking folks' focus away from the glory of God which we see in the face of Christ.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
You're still caring B. One way. Extravagantly graciously. The cure will take place in the resurrection. It can't happen now. Some - most - memes only end in death.
Although miracles do occur as I can testify of myself.
BHB is infected with the desire to be right more than the need to be loved. It will pass.
I suspect this MUST go to Dead Horses, perhaps we should request it where we can be free to try and engage BHB if his need survives his desire.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
Sounds good to me.
Prepare to move.
[ 12. December 2010, 18:19: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ByHisBlood
Shipmate
# 16018
|
Posted
(Makes no difference to me, put it in the Argos mail order chatroom if you like ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif) )
Barnabas quote:
on that point, I'd say the great majority to judge from the Wiki link, my own experience over 40 years and even the Chuck Missler video. If this angel theory was normal amongst evangelicals he could have started there in his presentation. But he made a point of saying that it isn't taught in seminaries. Have you ever asked why that is?
Indeed, for the same reason I suspect there were many individuals that mainly believed Noah, but peer pressure and retaining their 'cool' was a priority. Missler is prepared to be a fool for Christ, as one Evangelical said, "whose fool are you?" ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
--------------------
"Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him" - Romans 5:9
Posts: 220 | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
So you think the majority views (Seth, Creation order observations, reference to Babylonian nobles, incorporation of ancient legends for teaching purposes) are entirely without merit in seeking to understand an obscure passage? That the only interpretation consistent with scripture is the angel view? Is that not just an opinion at variance with opinions that Christian people, steeped in scripture, have held in good conscience?
And, on detail, what is wrong with the comment re the word nephilim (Blue letter bible) that the etymology is uncertain? That does seem more consistent than a confident opinion that it refers to hybrids. After all, much of the criticism of the Sethite view is based on the argument that it is silent about the nature of the nephilim. Why should any such silence be unjustified, given such uncertainty of meaning? I've looked again at Missler and he doesn't prove the meaning he uses, in any sense that I understand proof.
As a further side issue, there are no contemporary notes by the Septuagint translators to explain the choice of "gigantes" as a replacement for "nephiyl". We cannot be sure why they did that, we only know that they did. There is a justifiable uncertainty there. To assert the precision of the Greek language (as Missler did) is no proof that the precise word chosen was an exact fit for the original (and consonantal) Hebrew. That is another issue of uncertainty.
You see, when I have looked at the planks of certainty on which you stand, they really don't look all that solid to me. I think your confidence that you have "rightly divided the word of truth" is misplaced. YMMV.
At the macro level and the micro level, I think your Noah parallel about the majority does not work. And a final point comes from that parallel.
The issue in the Noah story was sinfulness and righteousness, not perfection in exegesis. Righteousness includes truthfulness. Do you believe that folks who see this differently to you are playing around with the truth, or avoiding it, whereas you are not?
Do you not allow for the possibility that you may just be being too confident here? A complete confidence in the truthfulness of Scripture does not lead to a complete confidence in our abilities as interpreters of meaning. We can all get it wrong. It's in our nature.
The Keryg Host was right to transfer of course. Inerrancy, and your particular take on it, is at the heart of this discussion. That is an assertion, but I am quite confident about it.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselm
Shipmate
# 4499
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
1. "Sons of God" (Gen 6:2) = fallen angels (since ben elohim seems clearly enough to mean that in Job 1 & 2) That is what BHB believes.
2. Whatever the meaning, view 1 is excluded by the very nature of the created order. Angels are not created to beget. That, in part, is my view.
3. The intermarriage of Sethites (men) and Cainites (women). That is your view
4. Sons of God refers to royal figures or descendants (Babylon), thought according to myths and legends to be divine/semi-divine. That is the view of Samuel Hooke, who wrote the Genesis commentary in Peake's Bible commentary, who is comfortable with the Genesis editor incorporating saga and myth for theological illumination (these are the reasons why God did the flood).
Anselm, the issue discussed in Purg, against the somewhat arcane setting of UFO speculation (I kid you not) was "which is best?".
I think you will prefer the textual territory so, on textual grounds, why prefer option 3 over option 1?
And how do you see the Nephilim in v 4. The fallen angel hypothesis sees them as angel/women hybrids (I kid you not again) which is why they were giants. "Strange" DNA, you see - or maybe you don't?
On textual grounds, the reason I prefer #3 is that it is a reading that is internally consistent with the text of Genesis and the wider Torah (as well as the theological issues you raised about breeding angels!)
The references to "sons of God" as a possible reference to angels comes from the wisdom literature (Job and Psalms), whereas there is another strong theme in the OT of the title "sons of God" as a reference to the people of God. Thus, Israel at the Exodus is referred to as God's "son", and then the Davidic line of kings are labelled as "son of God".
Most strongly for me is that just a chapter before the reference in question, in Gen 6, the son of Adam is referred to in the same language as God's creation of Adam - suggestion that Adam is the 'son of God' - a reading which I believe is supported by Luke's genealogy in
Luke 3.
The Nephalim would thus be a some tribe or people who origin is attributed to the intermarriage or Genesis 6 - it is hard to comment too much since the Nephalim are a people who were obviously well known to the original readers, and so didn't need much explanation.
--------------------
carpe diem domini
...seize the day to play dominoes?
Posts: 2544 | From: The Scriptorium | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
