SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : So who were the "sons of God" spoken of in Genesis?

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 Next Page )
PosterThread
Croref
Member



Joined: 2008/3/18
Posts: 334


 Re:

I would say angels. No reason not to and every reason to believe they were.

 2012/11/10 13:52Profile
Croref
Member



Joined: 2008/3/18
Posts: 334


 Re:

by RobertW on 2012/11/10 10:42:30

Hi Croref,

Quote:
Yes ___but not in this case. Angels, called men, didn't call upon the Name of the Lord. __Unless you are prepared to now say that men are not always men when men are spoken of when committing an act?



I must totally be missing the question here. Rather than me try to guess, please explain exactly what you are asking. Blessings.


I see that Robert.
My point is to bring to the front that men functioned under the hand of God, irrespective of the fall. He communicated with them, revealing himself in the process. In that regard there would be no need to suppose angels ever coming on the scene, being introduced, for the purpose of corrupting a civilization. Man can do that on his own__as we well know and experience __and that by the process of assimilation.

The record has no point in time that says otherwise thus leaving us to needlessly conjecture our opinions.

I stay by my opinions, not willing to conjecture the biology of angels.

 2012/11/10 14:02Profile
RobertW
Member



Joined: 2004/2/12
Posts: 4636
Independence, Missouri

 Re:

Hi CroRef,

Not trying to persuade anyone really. As mentioned before the best we can have in any case is a hypothesis of what may have happened. The challenge we have in dismissing the view is that it was held by the Jews long before the time of Jesus up until Josephus. He gives this historical account in Antiquities:

Antiq. 1:72 ¶ (1.3.1.72) Now this posterity of Seth continued to esteem God as the Lord of the universe, and to have an entire regard to virtue, for seven generations; but in process of time they were perverted, and forsook the practices of their forefathers, and did neither pay those honors to God which were appointed them, nor had they any concern to do justice towards men. But for what degree of zeal they had formerly shown for virtue, they now showed by their actions a double degree of wickedness; whereby they made God to be their enemy,
Antiq. 1:73 (1.3.1.73) for many angels of God accompanied with women, and begat sons that proved unjust, and despisers of all that was good, on account of the confidence they had in their own strength; for the tradition is, That these men did what resembled the acts of those whom the Grecians call giants.


For the record, I am not trying to establish a doctrine here. I just want to show that the view is ancient and give an accurate account of how it plays out for those interested. Blessings.


_________________
Robert Wurtz II

 2012/11/10 14:09Profile









 Re:

Quote:
That is conjecture, Robert. COMMON sense says so. Human form does not mean human biology! We have no right make that assumption except from unbelief.

When it comes to the missing pieces in creation and the Old World before Noah, it's all conjecture, unless you have any ancient writings that predate Noah that can shed some light on the subject, we'll keep on remaining in the dark.

 2012/11/10 14:26
Croref
Member



Joined: 2008/3/18
Posts: 334


 Re:

by RobertW on 2012/11/10 11:09:20

Hi CroRef,

Not trying to persuade anyone really. As mentioned before the best we can have in any case is a hypothesis of what may have happened. The challenge we have in dismissing the view is that it was held by the Jews long before the time of Jesus up until Josephus. He gives this historical account in Antiquities:

Antiq. 1:72 ¶ (1.3.1.72) Now this posterity of Seth continued to esteem God as the Lord of the universe, and to have an entire regard to virtue, for seven generations; but in process of time they were perverted, and forsook the practices of their forefathers, and did neither pay those honors to God which were appointed them, nor had they any concern to do justice towards men. But for what degree of zeal they had formerly shown for virtue, they now showed by their actions a double degree of wickedness; whereby they made God to be their enemy,
Antiq. 1:73 (1.3.1.73) for many angels of God accompanied with women, and begat sons that proved unjust, and despisers of all that was good, on account of the confidence they had in their own strength; for the tradition is, That these men did what resembled the acts of those whom the Grecians call giants.




Given the account of the Jews, even up to Josephus, I will still stay with my thinking. Not only that but it would seem they are held in reverence on issues that cannot be explained by their reasoning__too many things to support their unbelief in Jesus Christ.

 2012/11/10 14:41Profile









 Re:

Quote:
too many things to support their unbelief in Jesus Christ.

How so?

 2012/11/10 14:50
Croref
Member



Joined: 2008/3/18
Posts: 334


 Re:

I'll let you answer that.

 2012/11/10 14:56Profile
proudpapa
Member



Joined: 2012/5/13
Posts: 2936


 Re: Croref

hi Croref
interesting subject.

Croref wrote ///I would say angels. No reason not to.///

Does the old testament use the phrase "sons of God" ever in reference to men ??

 2012/11/10 15:01Profile
RobertW
Member



Joined: 2004/2/12
Posts: 4636
Independence, Missouri

 Re:

Hi proudpapa,

I know this was not addressed to me, but I wanted to mention it earlier anyway. The phrase 'sons of God' in the Hebrew is simply ben Elohiym (בן אלהים). 'Ben' can be translated as son, sons, child, children, etc. The exact phrase 'sons of God' is only used in Genesis 6 and Job 1 & 2. In reference to the OT we have this passage in Luke 3:38, Which was [the son] of Enos, which was [the son] of Seth, which was [the son] of Adam, which was [the son] of God. So the only definite place where a man is called a 'son of God' prior to the New Testament is Luke 3:38 and it is to Adam. The sons of God motif in the New Testament are defined strictly as those that are led by the Spirit. I think to suggest that there were 'sons of God' in the OT other than Adam is to inadvertantly imply that there were men born again of the Spirit and led of the Spirit in the OT. Just some added thoughts. Blessings.


_________________
Robert Wurtz II

 2012/11/10 15:57Profile
proudpapa
Member



Joined: 2012/5/13
Posts: 2936


 Re: RobertW

Hi RobertW, thankyou

 2012/11/10 16:48Profile





©2002-2020 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Privacy Policy