SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : Who are the sons, what is the devil doing there?

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 Next Page )
PosterThread
beenblake
Member



Joined: 2005/7/26
Posts: 524
Tennessee, USA

 Re:

Dear rookie,

I hope you don't mind me adding an observation.

Quote:
My understanding of Genesis 6 is that the 'sons of God' spoken of are indeed speaking of faithful men who were like Abel, Seth, Enoch, etc.



I would be tempted to agree with you, unless I read further as to what it says in Genesis 6:4.

(NASB)
4 The Nephilim were 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.

The part that interests me is that these giants, the Nephilim, held so much influence and power that they became 'men of renown.' Myths and legends developed from them. This doesn't sound like your average man.

Just an observation.

In love,
Blake




_________________
Blake Kidney

 2005/10/26 18:50Profile









 Re: Who are the sons, what is the devil doing there?

I'm sorry I have not been able to read the last page of this thread, but I have three further comments, much in line with my previous post.

1) Matthew 22:30
For in the resurrection [u]they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but [b]are as the angels of God[/b] in heaven[/u].

The fall of angels cannot have conferred on them the power of procreation. Why would God do that?

2) We still have giants on the earth. They may be rare, but they have to be held in context with the smallness of some others. Before the Flood, the coldness on earth which (later) helped to make people smaller, did not exist. This would have supported 'largeness'.

Historically, some completely perfect humans were only 3 - 4 feet tall - and still are today. This makes a person who is over 7'6" or even over 8 feet tall, [i]very[/i] much a giant. (The 'definition' nowadays is 6'3" or over).

People are still being born with 6 fingers and toes. I was at school with someone like this. These days tho, to avoid their future embarrassment by such a variation, at an early age, the 6th digit on each hand and foot which most readily offers itself as 'odd' is removed, so the rest of the developmental years take up the space and minimise the visible scarring from the surgery.

My point is, then (Gen 6) and now, these are genetic rather than spiritual variations in normality, which could easily have been passed down through Noah.

3) The spirits referred to in Peter's writings, could be those whom Jesus led captive after His victory on the cross, particularly those capable of holding people in bondage all their lives through fear of death. (Heb 2:14 - 16)

Psalms 68:18
Thou hast ascended on high, thou hast led captivity captive: thou hast received gifts for men; yea, for the rebellious also, that the LORD God might dwell [among them]. {for men: Heb. in the man}

Ephesians 4:8
Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men.

It may be this is why demon possession may seem to be quite muted in our societies now, especially the Christianised ones, where love in a measure militates against fear.

I believe we are in denial if we imagine that the sort of extreme violence which caused God to send the Flood, does not go on in a measure where it can unchecked, even today.

 2005/10/26 22:34
beenblake
Member



Joined: 2005/7/26
Posts: 524
Tennessee, USA

 Re:

Dear dorcas,

Quote:
My point is, then (Gen 6) and now, these are genetic rather than spiritual variations in normality, which could easily have been passed down through Noah.



What you say could be valid, except for the fact that we are not talking about a few genetic variations. We are not talking about a few giants popping up here and there. The scriptures do not give any indication of this. Rather, it seems to present it as such that all the children of the 'sons of God' and 'daughters of men' produced giants, 'men of renown.'

In today's time, we don't call giants, 'men of renown.' We think of them as being odd or strange, but not mighty and powerful. Why would people at that time be any different?

Not to mention that the genetic makeup of people during this time was closer to that of Adam, a perfect man. People before the time of Noah lived to be 1000 years. That was normal. And so, at that time in history, the likelyhood there was any genetic irregularities is small. I would be more inclined to say the people living during that time were near perfect.

These Nephilim had might and strength that caused people to revere them and call them heros. These are men with power.

This is just my observation. I do realize this is all speculation. We don't know the truth of the matter, and if God wanted us to know, then He would tell us.

What we do know is Christ, and that is who we should know.

God Bless,
Blake




_________________
Blake Kidney

 2005/10/27 9:25Profile
rookie
Member



Joined: 2003/6/3
Posts: 4792


 Re:

Brother Ron,

What is the equivalent word for Nephilim in the Septuagint?

In Christ
Jeff


_________________
Jeff Marshalek

 2005/10/27 13:01Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Quote:
What is the equivalent word for Nephilim in the Septuagint?

The Gen 6 passage has 'gigantes' which is our word gigantic and the Greek for 'giant'. However many Hebrew teachers did believe that these Nephilim were 'fallen ones' first and 'giants' second. ie they were gigantic because they were 'fallen ones'.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2005/10/28 13:53Profile
rookie
Member



Joined: 2003/6/3
Posts: 4792


 Re:


In the Septuagint the greek word 05303 for Nephilim is different. In the Greek the word is "Husterema" which means, "deficiency, that which is lacking, of those things which are to be filled up."

So there seems to be more to this idea of giants for the Hebrew scholars of the 3rd century BC chose to translate into Greek "husterema" as a means to convey what the Nephilim were, or were not.

Now with this, what really might be going on here in Genesis 6? If the Nephilim are lacking something, or there is a lack of them, what does that say as to fullfilling the need of the daughters of men?

In Christ
Jeff


_________________
Jeff Marshalek

 2005/10/28 14:54Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Quote:
In the Septuagint the greek word 05303 for Nephilim is different. In the Greek the word is "Husterema" which means, "deficiency, that which is lacking, of those things which are to be filled up."

I don't understand this paragraph. The Hebrew word, Strongs 05303 is nephilim, The Septuagint translations chose the Greek word 'gigontes'; this word is never used in the New Testament so there is no equivalent Strongs number for it.

Oh wait, I see what you have done. You have used your 'Accordance Software' to find the Strongs Number for the word Nephilim, but you have looked up the word in the Greek list, when you ought to have been looking in the Hebrew list. The Greek word husterema (Strongs: Greek! 5303) means 'poverty' but this Greek Strongs Number has nothing to do with the word Nephilim.

Nephilim, the Hebrew word, Strongs [u]Hebrew 5303[/u], is used only in Gen. 6:4; Num. 13:33.

husterema, the Greek word, Strongs [u]Greek 5303[/u] is used in Luke 21:4; 1Cor. 16:17; 2Cor. 8:14; 9:12; 11:9; Phil. 2:30; Col. 1:24; 1Th. 3:10.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2005/10/28 15:31Profile
rookie
Member



Joined: 2003/6/3
Posts: 4792


 Re:

Br. Ron,

You are right, I made the mistake that you pointed out here. I was using the Blue Letter Bible site for the info.

However, once seeing where I went wrong, I also noticed where you spoke of the idea of "fallen."

The root word in Hebrew is Strongs number 05307. The word is "Naphal." The meaning of this word connotes, the idea of fallen, or fail. So again, there seems to be something more to be gleaned.

Also I thought that the Nephilim were the result of the sons of God going into the daughters of men. But now looking at the verse more carefully, that doesn't seem to support that notion.

4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

The nephilim existed before the sons of God came into the daughters of men.

What do you think?

In Christ
Jeff


_________________
Jeff Marshalek

 2005/10/28 16:27Profile
CJaKfOrEsT
Member



Joined: 2004/3/31
Posts: 901
Melbourne, Australia

 Re:

Quote:

rookie wrote:
Also I thought that the Nephilim were the result of the sons of God going into the daughters of men. But now looking at the verse more carefully, that doesn't seem to support that notion.

4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

The nephilim existed before the sons of God came into the daughters of men.



In my early walk, I naively thought that "sons of God" refered to the decendants of Seth, and "daughters of men" refered to the decendants of Cain. With the latter knowledge that "sons of God" is translated from "ben elohim", I can see two possible paths.

Psalm 8:5 has been a verse that in the past I used to claim that the KJV was fallible. The reason being what KJV translates as "lower than the angels", some modern paraphrases translate "lower than God". The word "angel/God" is translated from "elohim". Because Elohim is mostly translated "God" it seemed to make more sense this way, for how can man, which is in the image of God, be created "lower than the angels"?

However, there is one problem with this logic, in that Hebrews 2, where the importance of man is established to be higher than that of angels, the writer quotes the psalmist and tarnslates "elohim" as "angello" (v7). Therefore, either "elohim" can be justifiably translated as "angels", or Hebrews is an "epistle of straw" (which obviously it is not). If this is the case, the term "sons of God" could also be translated "sons of angels", which would seem to support the notion of an "angellic union" with man that produced offspring. Behold "path one".

The other possible senario is found in Numbers and Deuteronomy, where God reveals the reason why Israel was to totally annihilate the seven nations in the promised land (namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites), while leaving others (Deut 20:10-18).

Quote:
Deuteronomy 2:9-12 (KJV)

9 And the LORD said unto me, Distress not the Moabites, neither contend with them in battle: for I will not give thee of their land for a possession; because [b]I have given Ar unto the children of Lot for a possession[/b].
10 The [b]Emims dwelt therein in times past, a people great, and many, and [u]tall, as the Anakims[/u][/b];
11 Which also were [b]accounted giants, as the Anakims; but the Moabites call them Emims[/b].
12 The Horims also dwelt in Seir beforetime; but the children of Esau succeeded them, when they had destroyed them from before them, and dwelt in their stead; as Israel did unto the land of his possession, which the LORD gave unto them.



Here we have a division. The nations that Israel were to destroy were descended from "giants" (here Anakim, decendants of Anak - Num 13:33) and the unmolested ones had already defeated the giants in their land. The further exortation is that Israel was forbidden to marry the women of these "Anakim nations", due to the strong temptation to be drawn to worship their gods. The only basis that an Israelite could marry outside of their own nation, was when the women were from "cities which are very far off from thee, which are not of the cities of these nations" (Deut 20:15), and women from the "Anakim nations" who were "women children, that have not known a man by lying with him" (Num 31:18 - obviously once they were old enough to marry).

Why would God do that? Because these nations worshipped their gods sexually. Their sexuality was corrupted and could not be separated from their "pagan" worship. For the Israelite to join with these women was to inevitably lead to their devotion to the foreign Gods, due to the "expertise" of these women in the delivery of sexual gratification. They would have been taught how to do it well, as a prostitute is taught in order to have their clients return for more. Just as the seductive techniques that have infiltrated western culture (such as Tantric Sex for example), which lead to ignorant worship of the "god of this world" due to the benefits of increased pleasure and promise everything from deepening of relationshipd to decrease of stress and physical ailments, so to would the Israelites end up prefering this kind of "worship" to that which was perscribed by Yahweh (on a side note, the restoration of the sexual worship the the "sacred goddess" is one of the purposes behind the the DaVinci Code).

Note also that this sexual worship was often associated with fertility, with the deity (such as Asteroth) promising increased "fruit of the womb" to those who submitted to her techniques. Before long, the Baals would be sacrificed to in order to "procure things", and the Molochs would be sacrificed to in order to attain "ascendancy over ones fellows" (for more on this listen to Paris Reidhead's [url=http://www.sermonindex.net/modules/mydownloads/singlefile.php?lid=38]Dangers of Third Generation Religion[/url]). Also note that these "false gods" would actually deliver on their promises, as all they would ask is that the "ways of this world" be obeyed (1 John 2:15-16).

Now considering that the "false gods" promised prosperity as a result of following the principles of this world, that the inhabitants of Canaan worshipped these gods, and the inhabitant were giants who were highly successful at cultivation and horticulture, and considering that the the "sons of Israel" were forbidden to marry the "daughters of Anak" because that would lead to these successful idolators to seducing Israel into like practice with promises of prosperity that they actually "could deliver on", then perhaps there is similarity to be noted when looking at the "sons of God (via Seth)" and the "daughters of men (ie, the 'ideal-giant-man', the Nephilim, via Cain)?

In other words, the reason why there were giants was that the people of the land (both the 'pre-flood' Nephilim and the 'pre-promised-land-conquest' Anakim) had such a handle on the 'principles of this world' (much like our modern day scientists) that they could manipulate things in such a way that prosperity was assured. Now considering also that God had already told Abraham that "the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full" and that his descendants would have to wait until that happened before he would give them the land (Gen 15:13-16). Now consider that if you had had some 440 years to perfect you idolatrous worship to the point that prosperity and success was assured, why would you want to stop this to obey a God who says that what you have been doing all these years is an "abomination in His sight", and that you now had to follow a course that would lead through suffering before the realisation of glory?

To me it makes sense that God would choose to flood the world, of whom He said, "My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh..." (Gen 6:3) and that logic also makes the total anihilation of the people in the promised land make sense. Perhaps this can help us to understand Jesus words "Resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also" (Mat 5:39) when considering the issue of wars. It seems that God was "genocidaly (is that a word :-)) racist" toward the inhabitants of His promised land. The judgement against the world by flooding would never be repeated, sealed with the sign of the rainbow (Gen 9:12-16). Perhaps his judgement against the world by ordering the sword point of His people, will not be repeated (now that would shed some light on the orgin of the "crusades" and "jihad" alike), with the confirming sign of the presence of the "salt of the earth" and the "light of the world" (Mat 5:13-16). That can be taken as a mixed message, by the modern day "giants in the land", as it would appear that there are no more obvious "warning shots". God is now about "giving over" the unrepentant to their sin and chastening of the righteous (See Rom 1 and Psalm 73).

So the choice is simple, either they repent of their trust in the "principles of the world" or they'll have to endure the final judgement when God's Spirit wil finally cease to strive with men for ever....


_________________
Aaron Ireland

 2006/5/17 9:26Profile









 Re: Eastons 1897 Bible Dictionary

We have so much confusion today on this issue. Who are the Sons of God?

Adam was referred to as the Son of God in the New Testament.

The 1897 Eastons Bible Dictionary has this to say about the issue.

Topics: Son of God

Text: The plural, "sons of God," is used (Gen. 6:2, 4) to denote the pious descendants of Seth. In Job 1:6; 38:7 this name is applied to the angels. Hosea uses the phrase (1:10) to designate the gracious relation in which men stand to God.

In the New Testament this phrase frequently denotes the relation into which we (Christian believers) are brought to God by adoption (Rom. 8:14, 19; 2 Cor. 6:18; Gal. 4:5, 6; Phil. 2:15; 1 John 3:1, 2). It occurs thirty-seven times in the New Testament as the distinctive title of our Saviour. He does not bear this title in consequence of his miraculous birth, nor of his incarnation, his resurrection, and exaltation to the Father's right hand.

This is a title of nature and not of office. The sonship of Christ denotes his equality with the Father. To call Christ the Son of God is to assert his true and proper divinity. The second Person of the Trinity, because of his eternal relation to the first Person, is the Son of God. He is the Son of God as to his divine nature, while as to his human nature he is the Son of David (Rom. 1:3, 4. Comp. Gal. 4:4; John 1:1-14; 5:18-25; 10:30-38, which prove that Christ was the Son of God before his incarnation, and that his claim to this title is a claim of equality with God).

When used with reference to creatures, whether men or angels, this word is always in the plural. In the singular it is always used of the second Person of the Trinity, with the single exception of Luke 3:38, where it is used of Adam.

xxxxx

In Hosea Chapter 1:10 The Jews, God's chosen people, are referred to as [u][i][b]God's sons [/b][/i][/u]([u][i][b]sons of the living God[/b][/i][/u]):

10. Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered; and it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, there it shall be said unto them, YE ARE THE [u][i][b]SONS OF THE LIVING GOD[/b][/i][/u]

New Testament

John 1:12 " 12. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the [u][i][b]sons of God[/b][/i][/u], even to them that believe on his name:"

Romans 8:14
14. For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the [u][i][b]sons of God[/b][/i][/u].

Romans 8:19
9. For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the [u][i][b]sons of God[/b][/i][/u].

Phil 2:13-15
13. For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.
14. Do all things without murmurings and disputings:
15. That ye may be blameless and harmless, the [u][i][b]sons of God[/b][/i][/u], without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world;

1 John 3:1-2 Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the [u][i][b]sons of God[/b][/i][/u]: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.
2. Beloved, now are we the [u][i][b]sons of God[/b][/i][/u], 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
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

It seems from the examples found in Scripture that the term "Sons of God" in the Book of Job actually refers to Angels (the good ones). A distinction is actually made between them, and Satan, who is a fallen Angel and would be hardly considered a Son of God anymore:

Job 1:6-7
6. Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them.
7. And the Lord said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the Lord, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.

What this Scripture teaches me is that Satan still has access to Heaven, and is still subservient to his maker, God Almighty.


God bless,

Stever :-)



 2006/5/17 22:48





©2002-2019 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Privacy Policy