|
|
Post by CoUrTnEy on Sept 7, 2004 12:47:03 GMT -5
Gen 6:2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they [were] fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
I have heard and seen this passage misinterpreted in regards to the item in bold type. There are spookists (and I know Kah will chime in on this), that say the scripture is implying that angels had sex with daughters of men. The problem with this arguement is angels referred to as "sons of God" are the dutiful, obedient kind, that serve God's wishes. Therefore they would not be participating in any kind of sex act. If they were the fallen type they would be referred to as "fallen demons" or some other type of title - rather than "sons of God". Therefore it is highly unlikely that in this piece of scripture we are talking about angels. Perhaps in this case "sons of God" refers to true believers, followers of God. There are just as many passages in scripture that use "son of God" in this way, as there are passages using this title in reference to angels. In this scripture it is more likely that we are talking about true believers marrying outside their faith than angels having sex with humans. I say all this using scripture to interpret scripture. That's the only way to do it.
|
|
|
|
Post by kAHANyAH on Sept 7, 2004 13:39:08 GMT -5
The first verse should have explained to you the type of relationship the sons of G-d had with the daughters of Men...
Gen 6:2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they [were] fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
See where it says "took them wives". A law or duty of a husband unto his wife is SEX. Thats implied in the concept of marriage. To take it a step further, the story we find in genesis is taken from an older source - the tablets of Enoch. And these tablets go further in detail regarding the relationship between the sons of G-d and daughters of men.
If you read further down the verse in the genesis chp. you will see how giants [gibbor] were born from the union of daughters of men and sons of G-d. Even in the book of Job HaShatan is from the ranks of Sons of G-d. HaShatan later became a member of the fallen angels.
I hope this brings a clearer picture to the subject.
|
|
|
|
Post by CoUrTnEy on Sept 7, 2004 14:28:26 GMT -5
Oh it's quite clear to me Kah. Let me say again:
The problem with this arguement is angels referred to as "sons of God" are the dutiful, obedient kind, that serve God's wishes. Therefore they would not be participating in any kind of sex act.
SO, we can't be talking about angels IN THIS PASSAGE when we say "sons of God", or else it would say fallen angels, or demons, or something of that nature.
ALSO, these giants you mention, First off, the scripture actually says :
Gen 6:4 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.
SO, you are assuming that these giants came from the union of "sons of God" and "daughters of men", when all it actually says was that at this time there were giants on the earth. What it says is that "mighty men" were a result of that union. Nimrod was also referred to as a "mighty one", however no one suggests that he was a giant of some kind, or the son of an angel.
Kah you are the King of taking things out of context. When you view Genesis 6:2 in the context that surrounds it, it is OBVIOUS we are not referring to angels as "sons of God", in this verse.
|
|
|
|
Post by kAHANyAH on Sept 7, 2004 16:46:16 GMT -5
CoUrTnEy Luv my dear, the verse youre quoting says it all...
Gen 6:4 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.
Let me ask you something , if a son of G-d came in unto a daughter of men, what does that mean ? And then to really seal the fate of that verse it comes full circle and says these women bare children unto the sons of G-d. To bear children means they got pregnant and gave birth. I dont think we have to hold a course on sex ed 101 to learn about the birds and the bees. Do we ? . The sons of G-d ejaculated into these daughters of men who in turn became pregnant and bear children for them. The children were the giants on earth or the [nephilim]. From the line of nephilim giants came about the GIBBOR [mighty men].
|
|
|
|
Post by kAHANyAH on Sept 7, 2004 16:50:55 GMT -5
The new testament of Jude speaks of these same Beni Elohim [sons of G-d] who conspired to come to earth and mate with fleshly women and establish their blood line on this planet. Here is the passage...
Jud 1:6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.
The prophet jude tells you in the 7th verse what source he is citing from - TABLETS OF ENOCH. It would definitely be worth your while to pick up a copy of the tablets of enoch and read the story of the sons of G-d who came down to our planet and had sex with flesh woman thus establishing a kingdom of giants who now rule our world.
Peace.
|
|
|
|
Post by kAHANyAH on Sept 7, 2004 17:57:54 GMT -5
This may help you in understanding the term *sons of G-d* and who it is relegated to.
The term "sons of G-d" is exclusive , determining a particular heavenly choir [host]. If you know of any ref. where the term "sons of G-d" is used other then the context of angelic beings in the OT, please provide the thread with it. I would like to read that.
Peace.
|
|
|
|
Post by kAHANyAH on Sept 7, 2004 18:50:19 GMT -5
NIMROD is a GIBBOR , descendant of the NEPHILIM. The Nephilim blood line runs thru HAM'S SEED. And this would mean the Nephilim survived thru Noah's wife, mother of Ham. She was descended from the women who mated with the Sons of G-d. This is how the disagreeble gene survived the flood to establish itself on the other side of the flood - thru HAM'S BLOODLINE. He carried on the geneology of the Nephil.
Who was Noah's wife ? Well she definitely was descended from the line of Banoth_Ha'Adam [daughters of men]. Why do we say Noah's wife was taken from the clan called Banoth_Ha'Adam ? Because gen 6.1 sets the stage for the intermingling between the righteous holy seed, unholy seed and the wicked unholy seed.
|
|
|
|
Post by CoUrTnEy on Sept 8, 2004 8:25:06 GMT -5
Like i told you before, I use the Bible to interpret the Bible, not some other text. You asked for references to "sons of God" in regards to someone other than angels:
Rom 8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.
1Jo 3:1 Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.
1Jo 3:2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, 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.
Phl 2:15 That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world;
I never said that there wasn't sex going on - simply that who it went on between was not human women and angels. You must not be reading what i said about "sons of God" being reference to dutiful angels, ones that do God's bidding - not fallen, lustful angels having sex.. you can justify anything out of context Kah. In this case, ONCE MORE, it is a reference to true believers, followers of God.
|
|
|
|
Post by kAHANyAH on Sept 8, 2004 8:29:28 GMT -5
What you accuse me of doin youre doing the same CoUrTnEy. How comes to interpret the romans as being angels but the one in the old testament not being angels ? Like i told you before, I use the Bible to interpret the Bible, not some other text. You asked for references to "sons of God" in regards to someone other than angels: Rom 8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. 1Jo 3:1 Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not. 1Jo 3:2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, 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. Phl 2:15 That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world; I never said that there wasn't sex going on - simply that who it went on between was not human women and angels. You must not be reading what i said about "sons of God" being reference to dutiful angels, ones that do God's bidding - not fallen, lustful angels having sex.. you can justify anything out of context Kah. In this case, ONCE MORE, it is a reference to true believers, followers of God. |
|
|
|
Post by kAHANyAH on Sept 8, 2004 8:40:30 GMT -5
Another thing to think about, even Jude ref. to the fallen angels as mere "ANGELS". So how would you deal with that ? He doesnt say they are fallen. He merely says Angels reserved for judgment day.
|
|
|
|
Post by CoUrTnEy on Sept 8, 2004 8:40:40 GMT -5
No dear, the romans is referring to True believers also - not angels. I know you will not see the light on this one, rather than something being exactly what it appears you would prefer to make it some mystical spooky thing... like i said before sometimes things are exactly what they appear to be - if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and got a big ole sign that says "I am a duck", then it prolly is a duck  What you accuse me of doin youre doing the same CoUrTnEy. How comes to interpret the romans as being angels but the one in the old testament not being angels ? |
|
|
|
Post by CoUrTnEy on Sept 8, 2004 8:41:48 GMT -5
I never said "angels" can't mean fallen angels, I am saying "SONS OF GOD" means dutiful ones, not fallen ones. You are trying to put words in my mouth that i did not say. Another thing to think about, even Jude ref. to the fallen angels as mere "ANGELS". So how would you deal with that ? He doesnt say they are fallen. He merely says Angels reserved for judgment day. |
|
|
|
Post by kAHANyAH on Sept 8, 2004 8:52:40 GMT -5
CoUrTnEy come on now you cant have it both ways. SONS OF G-D are considered ANGELS. Here take a look at this... The reason why Christ pronounced the title Sons of G-d upon us is because of this passage, Psa 82:6 I have said, Ye [are] gods; and all of you [are] children of the most High. Christ said that in the book of John, Jhn 10:34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?. When you get a chance read the 10th chp of John, it will explain why christ invoked that verse. He was going around claiming to be "SON OF G-D" or 'gods' [gods are angels] and they felt he was blaspheming. He checked them with that prophecy from the psalms. ANGELS = SONS OF G-D. I never said "angels" can't mean fallen angels, I am saying "SONS OF GOD" means dutiful ones, not fallen ones. You are trying to put words in my mouth that i did not say. |
|
|
|
Post by CoUrTnEy on Sept 8, 2004 9:49:15 GMT -5
Your arguement is wrong.. angels is not the ONLY thing that "sons of God" can mean. THAT is my point. It can be referring to dutiful angels (in the right context) and also true believers, righteous men. You, of all people, should know that words usually have more than one meaning.. geesh!! CoUrTnEy come on now you cant have it both ways. SONS OF G-D are considered ANGELS. Here take a look at this... The reason why Christ pronounced the title Sons of G-d upon us is because of this passage, Psa 82:6 I have said, Ye [are] gods; and all of you [are] children of the most High. Christ said that in the book of John, Jhn 10:34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?. When you get a chance read the 10th chp of John, it will explain why christ invoked that verse. He was going around claiming to be "SON OF G-D" or 'gods' [gods are angels] and they felt he was blaspheming. He checked them with that prophecy from the psalms. ANGELS = SONS OF G-D. |
|
|
|
Post by kAHANyAH on Sept 8, 2004 9:54:08 GMT -5
Courtney, I never said it didnt mean dutiful, true believers, etc... . What is being said is there was a group (about 200) from the sons of G-d who decided to go against a spiritual law. No one was saying the entire host FELL from grace. Only a fraction within that host did. This is why you cannot solely rely on the 666, opppss I mean 66 books of the BIBLE. U must consult xtra biblical txt. Even JUDE did that.  Your arguement is wrong.. angels is not the ONLY thing that "sons of God" can mean. THAT is my point. It can be referring to dutiful angels (in the right context) and also true believers, righteous men. |
|
