In the case of Sons of God, the context is the use of the same expression in Scripture! The context of Gen 6 is not a philosophical questioning.
Hebrew lexicons, the fruit of a vast amount of expert talent, merely confirms the obvious. It is the solo, island approach which a Wierwille or Armstrong used to undo so many gullible people! They knew almost nothing about language and then pontificated. If you doubt the obvious meaning, you dismiss the context of the words in the BIble. This is your only way of understanding scripture—by seeing what it means by certain words.
Once we see that ben elohim always means angels, all is clear. Once we stumble at the meaning, all sorts of questions may arise. Better leave the questions and believe the text. It is anyway rather amazing to think that righteous human beings linking up sexually with some females produced giants!
The event in Gen 6 is one of the most awful episodes in the history of the world. It should be understood in its own biblical language context. I would enjoy hearing from others on facebook if they think the standard Lexicons are all wrong on this point—not to mention the clear meaning of the passage just read as Scripture compared with Scripture.
WHY are you not answering my questions? First of all, your belligerent tone is not only unwarranted but downright rude, especially considering your continued refusal to answer or acknowledge my questions. So he answered. You merely asked if angels can produce offspring of the human kind. You only brought it up in this comment. I responded in detail to this argument in comment Anthony then responded to you:.
He responded that the phrase is used in the OT for angels, Peter and Jude read it that way, as well as most Jews and Christians. Therefore that is the meaning. I certainly have read lexicons which give definitions for certain terms that reflect a trinity bias …. So Anthony mentioned BDB as an example and asked you to provide proof of your point. You did not, but reverted to asking the same questions again.
Anthony, in comment 65, provided a lengthy explanation of how your premise was faulty and how the lexicons derive their definitions. By this it is evident that you did not understand his answers, since he has said repeatedly that the phrase Sons of God always means angels in the OT, as witnessed by the lexical definition, the context, the understanding of Peter and Jude, and the understanding of most Jews and Christians. First of all, he said that it was not his interpretation, but the lexical definition of the phrase.
Your premise of doubting the lexicon is faulty and without basis. Second, your questions were not about ramifications, they were about your perceived contradiction between the clear statements of Scripture and two faulty suppositions: 1. That fallen angels would not be called sons of God. This is what Anthony meant by your premise is faulty. I have dealt with both of your faulty suppositions, yet you have not responded.
Do you see the double standard there? It is more than ironic, it is downright rude, both to Anthony and to me. Whether you agree with him or not, he is still your brother in Christ. As for my questions, should I review them for you, or can you reread my comments and find them for yourself?
Sign in. Fire Prophet is a complete story, and they mention enough about the previous story that there are no gaps. But I liked it. When we compare this expression with similar events mentioned in the Scriptures, we can understand that this had nothing to do with immortal angels in heaven! These characters show all kinds of emotions and traits.
Are you reading the Hebrew? If so, note the term Bne Elohim. It means angels, and so that is what we are talking about! Asking questions without accepting the story does not have any point. They are questions which arise only after you do not accept the text. If you believe that God begot his Son Jesus, a man, then why do you have a problem with angels producing human offspring?
If an expression and the words used is not literally true to fact, the words obviously are not meant to be understood literally but have been used in a figure of speech …. It should be evident that Gen 6 cannot be referring to a cohabitation of angels of God with human women producing giants in a physical sense as offspring. So you consider that God begetting Jesus is different because He created in that case.
Why not? If you have an objection, just spell it out. Excuse me???? Show me one place where I have evaded a question of yours. Go back over my comments and respond directly to the points I made and the direct questions I asked. On the contrary, I gave you specific answers that provide valid reasons why I believe what I do about this subject. I have no idea why you have not responded.
But you keep arguing about things like this instead of accepting what the Bible clearly tells us. You begin by not accepting the text as written, and then you begin to question. When mating with other humans, yes. But nothing in the Bible says that angels cannot somehow cohabit with humans and produce corrupted offspring. On the contrary, it says that they did just that.
The Nephilim is the continuing chronicles of Jacen Hunter, the Gard who has only recently discovered he's much more than just a vampire. He's also part Angel. Re:the nephilim the gard chronicles book two 2. The Gard The Gard Chronicles Book One 1 and other options as The Nephilim The Gard Chronicles Book Two 2 .
It was described as leaving their proper abode and indulging in gross immorality, and they were imprisoned for it. As for my questions, I asked if you could reread my comments and find them for yourself. Since you only chose to answer one, I guess a review is in order here too. BTW, you have a habit of picking one point or question and going off on a tangent with it, while avoiding all the rest. Please answer all of them. I pointed out that in the case of humans and angels, we are not talking about two different kinds producing a different kind.
We are talking about angels who left their proper dwelling, and did something so grievous that they were imprisoned for it. However, I reminded you that that has nothing to do with the question of angels and humans cohabiting, since angels do not have genus or species, and normally do not reproduce. This was an unusual situation that had unusual consequences.
You claimed that careful reading of Peter and Jude in context would show they are not speaking of angels. You have yet to respond. You keep repeating the claim that the idea of angels and humans producing offspring is contrary to what the Scriptures say. Again, you have yet to respond. I await your answers…. Sometimes it speaks of the sons of God as being those who are led by the spirit of God. Please read or reread comment However the new birth was not available before Christ came. I asked if you were reading the Hebrew and if you would look up benei elohim in any, or all, of the standard Hebrew lexicons.
One might then ask, what peer review you have to support the idea that you are in a position to challenge ALL of the lexicons? Is this so obviously your area of training and expertise? The point is that we need to guard against the Weirwillian and Armstrongian tendencies which we know produced so much evil and faulty Bible understanding. Also, my questions are much broader than just one verse in Genesis.
Its concern is the Weirwilian-Armstrongian tendency. Both Jude; Peter are perfectly adequate comment on the ghastly mixing of angelic and human persons. Is this what Gen is really talking about? Or are the years a reference to the time span that was left from that time onward until the flood? Consider that even Noah lived on after the flood for more than years … thus obviously, the reference could NOT have been about the life span of mankind. Taking your advice of reading the scriptures for what the text says, neither Jude nor Peter communicated anything about a mixing of angelic spirit beings with human persons ….
I would also think that Peter and Jude knew very well that only humans can produce human progeny, and that women only conceive by men, with only one exception, that of the only begotten Son of God, who according to the angel Gabriel was conceived by a miracle which God Himself worked. This is hot topic in many circles. I think you meant Heb 1.
Also, in case you have not been following this thread, the phrase as it appears in Gen 6. Why is this so hard? For instance Moses only lived until years and Joseph only and so on after that. Therefore, this punishment from YHWH did not surface until later on and to this day people live approximately no more than years give or take one to two years before or afterwards.