As it Was In The Days Of Noah...

[JLB]

I believe you are correct, and have the scriptures to back up the view you have presented. This is where I am right now.

The Sethite view absolutely no scriptural support.

So if what you are presenting as a view does happen to be the correct view (and it does make sense!) then...would it be reasonable to take this context into the reading of Matthew and read Jesus words as if he were speaking about "they" being the Sons of God...as in the days of Noah!

If so, this would certainly throw different ramifications upon the interpretation and understanding of Jesus words, would it not? Perhaps.

A multifaceted view indeed.

Would you allow me to share on this view, as it relates to the end times?


JLB

 

[Deborah13]

I believe you are correct, and have the scriptures to back up the view you have presented. This is where I am right now.

The Sethite view absolutely no scriptural support.

So if what you are presenting as a view does happen to be the correct view (and it does make sense!) then...would it be reasonable to take this context into the reading of Matthew and read Jesus words as if he were speaking about "they" being the Sons of God...as in the days of Noah!

If so, this would certainly throw different ramifications upon the interpretation and understanding of Jesus words, would it not? Perhaps.

I don't think so.
GOD said that man and his behavior was the cause of the flood. v 5,6, and 7
Jesus would not disagree with the what God said. He would not teach against the scripture.

So unless you are saying that the "man" in these verses is some kind of a mix breed........

 

[JLB]

I don't think so.
GOD said that man and his behavior was the cause of the flood. v 5,6, and 7
Jesus would not disagree with the what God said. He would not teach against the scripture.

So unless you are saying that the "man" in these verses is some kind of a mix breed........

Mixed breed is correct.

Hybrid man

 

[King James]

Hey Edward. After previous attempts of this subject matter, I'm surprised your giving it another go, on this website at least. This subject might as well be a conspiracy theory on how it's viewed.

 

[Edward]

A multifaceted view indeed.

Would you allow me to share on this view, as it relates to the end times?

JLB

Yes I would JLB. I respect your views and willingness to share, even though we may not see eye to eye on everything. Different perspectives are very valuable to hear and sometimes it just takes the right person saying the right thing at the right time to have it go click and makes sense...then grow. Even though we may disagree on some things at this time, in no way means that I do not consider them in an academic manner, and try to 'make it fit' with an open mind on the off chance that I am wrong about something. So...yes, have at it brother.And by all means, go a little beyond merely posting the scriptures with your personal interpretation of the particulars.

 

[Edward]

I don't think so.
GOD said that man and his behavior was the cause of the flood. v 5,6, and 7
Jesus would not disagree with the what God said. He would not teach against the scripture.

So unless you are saying that the "man" in these verses is some kind of a mix breed........

Deborah13...I am not saying anything concrete at this time. I am wanting to be sure, so have posed the question, because I believe that a valid question is raised by the context of the Genesis verses of just exactly who IS the "they" which Jesus spoke of. I do agree with you that Jesus would absolutely not teach against scripture, and yet...are WE VERY sure that He WAS speaking of man? THAT is the question, and the truth is what I am trying to establish here.

If we take the context of the Genesis verses into account while reading the Matthew verses, can we honestly say that He WAS absolutely speaking of man? I am not so sure about this because of the Genesis verses. Will we reject the Genesis verses because it may take us out of our comfort zone? Mankind was evil, granted. We all agree on that. The world was full of sin, we all agree on that. But in that view, no one can explain what in the world the first part means.

We have heard one possible explanation of what the first section of Genesis could be referring to, which does seem to have other scriptural support. It may indeed sound science fiction, however, it is something and it is plausible however weird at first glance it may seem. The "Sons of God" has a real life Hebrew definition. I did not make that up.(bene ha-'elohim, "sons of God" (Genesis 6:2,4; Job 1:6; 2:1); bene 'elohim, "sons of God" (Job 38:7) IS scripture, so let us consider the scripture and give it the validity that it so much deserves. I did not write this, I am a student of it and merely seek the truth and growth. If that means setting aside my grade school Sunday school watered down religious traditions for the sake of showing myself approved and to grow and mature...so be it. I am not asking people to see it professor Edwards way. I am saying, hey, brothers and sister students, I have a question that I think is valid, can you help me to see the truth, scripturally?

With all due respect, I see your view, and ask (for it was mine at one time also!) but I ask you, the same thing I asked myself...can you back that up scripturally? That it was absolutely MAN that Jesus was speaking of?

 

[Edward]

Hey Edward. After previous attempts of this subject matter, I'm surprised your giving it another go, on this website at least. This subject might as well be a conspiracy theory on how it's viewed.

There are some open minded mature people here. I do not attempt to go deeper into this than merely establishing the answer to one question. No further. Fiction is a place that fact once was until someone posed a question and dug for the answer and kept at it until the truth came out and a fact established. I do not like to be wrong. If I am wrong about this. Someone can prove it and back it up with scripture. Truth has a way of clicking.

Didn't they kill the first guy who said the earth wasn't flat or imprison him or something? Now we know that the earth is round. Scripture says that in the last days that knowledge will be increased. I believe that it was speaking about the knowledge of God. So we study to show ourselves approved unto God. I am not too proud to say I am wrong or to change my view. I seek the Lord and His real truth, whatever it may be. I try.

 

[Dan00]

I have a question. It arose out of another thread, but I didn't want to take it off topic there so will ask it here. First the scripture, then the question:

Matthew 24:37-39
37 But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,
39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be./(KJV)

The question is: In verse 38...who is the "they" that is being spoken of by Jesus?

I would like find out who "they" are. Stick to the topic brothers and sisters.

Edward,

I recently joined the forum, found this older thread, and wanted to add my two cents. My argument is rather lengthy, so bear with me.

I believe Jesus was referring to events surrounding the destruction of Jerusalem and Israel in 70 A.D. Recall Jesus said this:

"For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works. Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom." - Matthew 16:27-28

Jesus was referring to His own generation. Also recall these events that would occur in His generation:

"But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come." - Matthew 10:23

"From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation." - Luke 11:51

And the following event also occurred in Jesus' generation:

"And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other ...Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled." - Matthew 24:30-31, 34

Now, if Jesus was to "come" in his own generation, what was He coming for? I believe He was coming with his [Roman] armies to destroy Jerusalem in 70 A.D, sending his angels to remove his elect from harms way.

Now, a "flood" is mentioned in Daniel, which I believe also refers to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.:

"And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined. And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate." -- Daniel 9:26-27

This is a hard statement that has produced a myriad of interpretations. But the "flood" event is there, the timeline seems to fit the generation of Christ, and the word "desolate" is also mentioned Christ's prophecies of the destruction of the temple (Matthew 23:37-38, 24:15; Mark 13:14; Luke 21:20.)

Now, about the "flood:" Isaiah 59 prophecies about the absence of judgement, justice and the truth in Israel, and states the Lord's "arm" will bring forth salvation and extract vengeance:

"For he put on righteousness as a breastplate, and an helmet of salvation upon his head; and he put on the garments of vengeance for clothing, and was clad with zeal as a cloak. According to their deeds, accordingly he will repay, fury to his adversaries, recompence to his enemies; to the islands he will repay recompence. So shall they fear the name of the Lord from the west, and his glory from the rising of the sun. When the enemy shall come in like a flood, the Spirit of the Lord shall lift up a standard against him." Isaiah 59:17-19

The word "flood" is there, and if this prophecy is referencing the destruction of Jerusalem, as I believe, the "flood" refers to the Roman Armies. The extraction of vengeance (see Luke 21:22, 11:51) was to occur from the blood of the inhabitants of Jerusalem and Israel, and it was.

A few other points that demonstrate the magnitude of this event are as follows:

Moses prophesied the siege of Jerusalem and the cannibalism that would occur during the resulting famine in Deut 28:49-52. Flavius Josephus, a historian and a captured Jewish general during the siege , confirmed the cannibalism in his book, "The War of the Jews" (War 6:3:4.) Josephus also made this remarkable statement:

"The [catapult] engines, that all the legions had ready prepared for them, were admirably contrived; but still more extraordinary ones belonged to the tenth legion: those that threw darts and those that threw stones were more forcible and larger than the rest, by which they not only repelled the excursions of the Jews, but drove those away that were upon the walls also. Now the stones that were cast were of the weight of a talent, and were carried two furlongs and further. The blow they gave was no way to be sustained, not only by those that stood first in the way, but by those that were beyond them for a great space." (War 5:6:3) (my brackets)

Compare the highlighted statement with this one:

"And there fell upon men a great hail out of heaven, every stone about the weight of a talent: and men blasphemed God because of the plague of the hail; for the plague thereof was exceeding great." (Revelation 16:21)

And finally there is this statement that relates to the great tribulation prophesied in Matthew 24:21 and Mark 13:19, and to the wickedness of Christ's generation mentioned in every gospel:

"I shall therefore speak my mind here at once briefly -- That neither did any other city ever suffer such miseries, nor did any age ever breed a generation more fruitful in wickedness that this was, from the beginning of the world." (War, 5:10:5)

Dan

 

[chessman]

The question is: In verse 38...who is the "they" that is being spoken of by Jesus?
Verse 2 here is speaking of the sons of God saw the daughters of men and THEY took them wives of all they chose...So can you see the source of my question here? Who's they in Matthew speaking of?
Let's not make this a Nephilim thread, don't even mention them, it upsets too many people. I would like find out who "they" are. Stick to the topic brothers and sisters.

Sequence of events starting at the very beginning:

God explained to Adam what was sinful (against the rules, so to speak).

Satan, comes around and says otherwise to Eve (deceiving her, so to speak). Then:

Gen 3:6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate…​

Then Adam/Eve receive their punishment for their acts of disobedience.

But note the sequence here is that Eve:
1) Saw [something forbidden to do by God]
2) she thought it was good/delightful [though really it wasn’t good in God’s eyes but rather her “eyes”]
3) then she took it anyway. And did so with Adam. (Partners, if you will). Satan having deceived Eve.

Then Noah’s account:

Gen 6:2 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose. 3 Then the Lord said, “My Spirit shall not abide in man forever,​

Are there direct parallels here (between Gen 3 and Gen 6) that are also present between Matt 24 and Gen 6? I don’t know for sure but think there are.

Well, obviously Matt 24 says “as it was in the days of Noah…” so parallels are certainly in view already via the text. Maybe there is more than just the obvious parallels from which we can tell what it means in Matt 24:38 by “they”? I think you have brought up a good study. And I’ll try to respect how you’ve limited it.

One thing about Gen 3 and Gen 6, is that it’s the same author (Moses) and the same sequence of Hebrew words used (even their same verb forms) and the sequence of events/actions/etc. seems to be the same as that used in Gen 3 (The Fall) that is used in Gen 6 (The Flood) and that we also see during the end times in Rev (The Final Judgment of which Jesus seems to be speaking of in Matt 24). We also see it at the time of Jesus’ “trail” and execution and punishment afterwards (70 A.D.) Basically a bunch (and I mean a bunch) of humans running around sinning while also being deceived (quite directly) by Satan and/or his demons. Judas being given over to Satan. Satan running around Earth deceiving people, etc.

The parallels are astounding, if you ask me. I’d also point out that it sounds pretty much like what was going on with Satan’s influence upon the Pharisees (and Judas) around the time of Jesus’ death as well.
So my specific point works on either view of Matt 24’s timeframe (that is, that Jesus meant 70 A.D. or sometime after 2012 A.D.).

But here’s my point:
‘Saw’: http://biblesuite.com/hebrew/vattere_7200.htm
‘Good/Attractive’: http://biblesuite.com/hebrew/tov_2896.htm / http://biblesuite.com/hebrew/tovot_2896.htm
‘Took’: http://biblesuite.com/hebrew/vaiyikchu_3947.htm

In Genesis 6: Somebody (“Sons of God” and “Daughters of man”, TBD if human or demonic or combination thereof): Saw something good/delightful/attractive (even though it was forbidden) and took it anyway and got punished for it.

And what punishment did “they” receive for the sin “they” performed?

Gen 6:3 Then the Lord said, “My Spirit shall not abide in man forever, for he is flesh:​

So in Gen 6, we are pretty much told the punishment for the sin was to ‘man’. I think it’s the same in Matt 24.

I think the “they” in Matt 24:38 specifically means humans. Not because there was not some demonic/satanic activity going on at the time, but precisely because there was (‘as it was in the days of Noah’ ).

It sounds just like Moses even in Gen 6 was making direct parallels to the time of Adam/Eve (Gen 3) and that’s the way it will be at the “coming of the Son of Man”. Basically because that’s the way it’s always been and always will be until the time of deception and sin is finally put to an end.
So where’s the “deceiving” of man (humans) directly from Satan and/or his demons in the Gen 6 account, if there’s a direct parallel? I could say more about the parallels between Gen 6 and Gen 3 (and to events between 33 A.D and 70 A.D., but out of respect to the specific OP topic and its limitation and request not to mention it, I will not. But just a “hint”. Could it be the very next verse?

The parallelism Jesus spoke of between Matt 24 and Noah, reminds me of the way parallelism was used in Hebrews 11:

Hebrews 11

1 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. [like faith in the second coming of Christ in any generation]
2 For by it the people of old received their commendation.
4. By faith Abel offered to God a more acceptable sacrifice than Cain [Going way back]​

5 By faith Enoch was taken up
8 By faith Abraham obeyed
23 By faith Moses
32 And what more shall I say? For time would fail me to tell of Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, of David and Samuel and the prophets—
My point is, Hebrews goes back through the Scriptures making period by period parallelism with specific past SAVED people concerning their “faith”.

I think Jesus was doing that very same thing in Matt 24. This time only using parallelisms with the lost (their actions and THEIR punishment).

But that's not to say that the deception of Satan and/or his demons were not in/around that sinfulness.

 

[Deborah13]

Sequence of events starting at the very beginning:

God explained to Adam what was sinful (against the rules, so to speak).

Satan, comes around and says otherwise to Eve (deceiving her, so to speak). Then:

Gen 3:6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate…​

Then Adam/Eve receive their punishment for their acts of disobedience.

But note the sequence here is that Eve:
1) Saw [something forbidden to do by God]
2) she thought it was good/delightful [though really it wasn’t good in God’s eyes but rather her “eyes”]
3) then she took it anyway. And did so with Adam. (Partners, if you will). Satan having deceived Eve.

Then Noah’s account:

Gen 6:2 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose. 3 Then the Lord said, “My Spirit shall not abide in man forever,​

Are there direct parallels here (between Gen 3 and Gen 6) that are also present between Matt 24 and Gen 6? I don’t know for sure but think there are.

Well, obviously Matt 24 says “as it was in the days of Noah…” so parallels are certainly in view already via the text. Maybe there is more than just the obvious parallels from which we can tell what it means in Matt 24:38 by “they”? I think you have brought up a good study. And I’ll try to respect how you’ve limited it.

One thing about Gen 3 and Gen 6, is that it’s the same author (Moses) and the same sequence of Hebrew words used (even their same verb forms) and the sequence of events/actions/etc. seems to be the same as that used in Gen 3 (The Fall) that is used in Gen 6 (The Flood) and that we also see during the end times in Rev (The Final Judgment of which Jesus seems to be speaking of in Matt 24). We also see it at the time of Jesus’ “trail” and execution and punishment afterwards (70 A.D.) Basically a bunch (and I mean a bunch) of humans running around sinning while also being deceived (quite directly) by Satan and/or his demons. Judas being given over to Satan. Satan running around Earth deceiving people, etc.

The parallels are astounding, if you ask me. I’d also point out that it sounds pretty much like what was going on with Satan’s influence upon the Pharisees (and Judas) around the time of Jesus’ death as well.
So my specific point works on either view of Matt 24’s timeframe (that is, that Jesus meant 70 A.D. or sometime after 2012 A.D.).

But here’s my point:
‘Saw’: http://biblesuite.com/hebrew/vattere_7200.htm
‘Good/Attractive’: http://biblesuite.com/hebrew/tov_2896.htm / http://biblesuite.com/hebrew/tovot_2896.htm
‘Took’: http://biblesuite.com/hebrew/vaiyikchu_3947.htm

In Genesis 6: Somebody (“Sons of God” and “Daughters of man”, TBD if human or demonic or combination thereof): Saw something good/delightful/attractive (even though it was forbidden) and took it anyway and got punished for it.

And what punishment did “they” receive for the sin “they” performed?

Gen 6:3 Then the Lord said, “My Spirit shall not abide in man forever, for he is flesh:​

So in Gen 6, we are pretty much told the punishment for the sin was to ‘man’. I think it’s the same in Matt 24.

I think the “they” in Matt 24:38 specifically means humans. Not because there was not some demonic/satanic activity going on at the time, but precisely because there was (‘as it was in the days of Noah’ ).

It sounds just like Moses even in Gen 6 was making direct parallels to the time of Adam/Eve (Gen 3) and that’s the way it will be at the “coming of the Son of Man”. Basically because that’s the way it’s always been and always will be until the time of deception and sin is finally put to an end.
So where’s the “deceiving” of man (humans) directly from Satan and/or his demons in the Gen 6 account, if there’s a direct parallel? I could say more about the parallels between Gen 6 and Gen 3 (and to events between 33 A.D and 70 A.D., but out of respect to the specific OP topic and its limitation and request not to mention it, I will not. But just a “hint”. Could it be the very next verse?

The parallelism Jesus spoke of between Matt 24 and Noah, reminds me of the way parallelism was used in Hebrews 11:

Hebrews 11

1 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. [like faith in the second coming of Christ in any generation]
2 For by it the people of old received their commendation.
4. By faith Abel offered to God a more acceptable sacrifice than Cain [Going way back]​

5 By faith Enoch was taken up
8 By faith Abraham obeyed
23 By faith Moses
32 And what more shall I say? For time would fail me to tell of Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, of David and Samuel and the prophets—
My point is, Hebrews goes back through the Scriptures making period by period parallelism with specific past SAVED people concerning their “faith”.

I think Jesus was doing that very same thing in Matt 24. This time only using parallelisms with the lost (their actions and THEIR punishment).

But that's not to say that the deception of Satan and/or his demons were not in/around that sinfulness.

chessman, imo this is an excellent post.

If we really want to know what the Jewish interpretation is (as Edward mentioned them) of who the 'sons of God' are then maybe do the research and see what the rabbis taught on this scripture.
I know what Chuck Missler teaches. I did watch his video that was posted in the previous thread on this subject and read the article posted. But what did the rabbi Maimonides teach? I will attempt to look this up to verify the quote below taken from wiki.

"Most notable Jewish writers in support for the view of human "sons of God" were Saadia, Rashi, Lekah Tob, Midrash Aggada, Joseph Bekor Shor, Abraham ibn Ezra, Maimonides, David Kimhi, Nahmanides, Hizkuni, Bahya Ashur, Gersonides,[33] Shimeon ben Yochai and Hillel ben Samuel.[34]"

PS
I edited my post to say, ""I" know" because other people may not.
I do not dismiss his teachings as being incorrect.

 

[stovebolts]

chessman, imo this is an excellent post.

If we really want to know what the Jewish interpretation is (as Edward mentioned them) of who the 'sons of God' are then maybe do the research and see what the rabbis taught on this scripture.
We know what Chuck Missler teaches. I did watch his video that was posted in the previous thread on this subject and read the article posted. But what did the rabbi Maimonides teach? I will attempt to look this up to verify the quote below taken from wiki.

"Most notable Jewish writers in support for the view of human "sons of God" were Saadia, Rashi, Lekah Tob, Midrash Aggada, Joseph Bekor Shor, Abraham ibn Ezra, Maimonides, David Kimhi, Nahmanides, Hizkuni, Bahya Ashur, Gersonides,[33] Shimeon ben Yochai and Hillel ben Samuel.[34]"

http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/8171#showrashi=true

Hassidic Jews interpret the passage this way:

That the sons of the nobles saw the daughters of man when they were beautifying themselves, and they took for themselves wives from whomever they chose.

Rashi states:
the sons of the nobles: Heb. בְּנֵי הָאֱלֹהִים, the sons of the princes (Targumim) and the judges (Gen. Rabbah 26:5). Another explanation: בְּנֵי הָאֱלֹהִים are the princes who go as messengers of the Omnipresent. They too mingled with them (Pirkei d’Rabbi Eliezer, ch. 22). Every אֱלֹהִים in Scripture is an expression of authority, and the following proves it (Exod. 4:16): “And you shall be to him as a lord (לֵאלֹהִים)”; (ibid. 7:1): “See, I have made you a lord (אֶלֹהִים).”

when they were beautifying themselves: Heb., טֹבֹת. Said Rabbi Judan: It is written טבת [i.e., instead of טובות. Thus it can be read טָבַת, meaning to beautify.] When they would beautify her, adorned to enter the nuptial canopy, a noble would enter and have relations with her first (Gen. Rabbah 26:5).

from whomever they chose: Even a married woman, even males and animals (Gen. Rabbah ad loc.).

Something else to consider. If we are seeking truth on the matter, then we must realize that there are differing opinions on interpretation so we ought to be respectful of those we disagree with.

Something else to at least think about... As the OP already stated, Adam was called the son of God, because being made in the likeness and image of God, Adam represented God. Adam fell due to willful disobedience and as a result, death entered the world. This picture is mirrored in the flood naritive. But we also see the story playing out again through the Exodus where in Chapter 4 God calls Israel "His Son". By right, wouldn't the individual members of Israel then be "sons of God" if indeed God is calling them His son? Even Psalms 80 depicts Israel as God's son.

Now Jesus, he was God's only begotten son. Hence, the second Adam accomplishing all that the first son and subsequent sons could not do and thereby reconciling all things unto himself.

For what it's worth, one can accept or reject what's put forth for whatever reasons considered justifiable. I shall now recede into the background.

Grace and Peace.

 

[Deborah13]

Deborah13...I am not saying anything concrete at this time. I am wanting to be sure, so have posed the question, because I believe that a valid question is raised by the context of the Genesis verses of just exactly who IS the "they" which Jesus spoke of. I do agree with you that Jesus would absolutely not teach against scripture, and yet...are WE VERY sure that He WAS speaking of man? THAT is the question, and the truth is what I am trying to establish here.

If we take the context of the Genesis verses into account while reading the Matthew verses, can we honestly say that He WAS absolutely speaking of man? I am not so sure about this because of the Genesis verses. Will we reject the Genesis verses because it may take us out of our comfort zone? Mankind was evil, granted. We all agree on that. The world was full of sin, we all agree on that. But in that view, no one can explain what in the world the first part means.

We have heard one possible explanation of what the first section of Genesis could be referring to, which does seem to have other scriptural support. It may indeed sound science fiction, however, it is something and it is plausible however weird at first glance it may seem.

The "Sons of God" has a real life Hebrew definition. I did not make that up.(bene ha-'elohim, "sons of God" (Genesis 6:2,4; Job 1:6; 2:1); bene 'elohim, "sons of God" (Job 38:7) IS scripture, so let us consider the scripture and give it the validity that it so much deserves.

I agree we should never ignore or dismiss any scripture and that an honest study can be done of all views. Because you brought up about it being Hebrew I have quote some of the Hebrew writings on the subject.
So this quote is from the Jewish Virtual Library.
"The "sons of God" are explained in the Targum to Genesis 6:4 and the Midrash (Gen. R. 26:5) as young aristocrats who married the daughters of commoners. The Targum renders both gibborim and Nephilim by gibbaraya; the Midrash (Gen. R. 26:7) lists seven names applied to giants. The Babylonian Talmud mentions the names of Shamhazzai, Uzza, and Uzziel, the leaders of the fallen *angels in Enoch, but does not say that they were angels: Yoma 67b alludes to the sins of Uzza and Uzziel; Niddah 61a states that Sihon and Og were descendants of Shamhazzai. In Deuteronomy 3:11 *Og is described as a giant, and this theme was developed to a large degree in aggadic legend. In post-talmudic literature (cf. Rashi, Yoma 67b) the long-suppressed myth came to the surface again. The Palestinian Targum gives the orthodox rendering of Genesis 6:1, but translates verse 4 as: "Shamhazzai and Uzziel fell from heaven and were on earth in those days"–identifying the Nephilim as the fallen angels rather than their children. The same identification is found in a late Midrash, which calls the fallen angels Uzza and Uzziel; another passage in the same document says the Nephilim were descendants of Cain (Aggadat Bereshit, ed. S. Buber, introd., p. 38). The Zohar (1:58a) also identifies the Nephilim with the fallen angels. The standard medieval Bible commentators generally followed the classical aggadah in rejecting the mythological interpretation and asserting that the marriages in Genesis 6 were human. Some variant opinions about the "sons of God" are offered–e.g., that their distinction was not only social, but physical and even moral, and that the offspring were called Nephilim because they "fell short" of their fathers in these respects (Nahmanides, Abrabanel). http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0015_0_14693.html

Here's a scripture that I believe attests to the fact that there were very large people living during that time. I don't believe they were large because of a debilitating genetic disorder as we see in people today that are abnormally large. We know that Goliath and his four brothers were mighty warrior, not clumsy, slow, and in pain.

Deu 3:11 For only Og king of Bashan remained of the remnant of giants; behold, his bedstead was a bedstead of iron; is it not in Rabbath of the children of Ammon? nine cubits was the length thereof, and four cubits the breadth of it, after the cubit of a man.
cubit = approx. 18" , 9 cubits = 13.5 ft., 4 cubits = 6 ft.
That's a very large bed and strong, made of iron.

I did not write this, I am a student of it and merely seek the truth and growth. If that means setting aside my grade school Sunday school watered down religious traditions for the sake of showing myself approved and to grow and mature...so be it. I am not asking people to see it professor Edwards way. I am saying, hey, brothers and sister students, I have a question that I think is valid, can you help me to see the truth, scripturally?

With all due respect, I see your view, and ask (for it was mine at one time also!) but I ask you, the same thing I asked myself...can you back that up scripturally? That it was absolutely MAN that Jesus was speaking of?

 

[Sparkey]

With all due respect, I see your view, and ask (for it was mine at one time also!) but I ask you, the same thing I asked myself...can you back that up scripturally? That it was absolutely MAN that Jesus was speaking of?

I don't see the need to reply to speculation with absolutes. Why should anybody try to persuade another person against their will? Is that what you really want, Edward? For me to attempt to tell you something that I know is true? Should I?

Taking a thought, a mere speculation, and then elevating it does not make it truth. It would not "create" truth if I tried and would not "create" truth if every person on the planet agreed. The truth may be hidden for a moment. What's a guy to do?

Let the truth be the truth. Some think this and some think that. None have the ability to prove beyond every shadow of doubt. Why demand what you yourself can not do? That's the part that I don't approve of.

Cordially,
SparrowHawke

 

[Sinthesis]

Sequence of events starting at the very beginning:

God explained to Adam what was sinful (against the rules, so to speak).

Satan, comes around and says otherwise to Eve (deceiving her, so to speak). Then:

Gen 3:6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate…​

Then Adam/Eve receive their punishment for their acts of disobedience.

But note the sequence here is that Eve:
1) Saw [something forbidden to do by God]
2) she thought it was good/delightful [though really it wasn’t good in God’s eyes but rather her “eyes”]
3) then she took it anyway. And did so with Adam. (Partners, if you will). Satan having deceived Eve.

Then Noah’s account:

Gen 6:2 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose. 3 Then the Lord said, “My Spirit shall not abide in man forever,​

Are there direct parallels here (between Gen 3 and Gen 6) that are also present between Matt 24 and Gen 6? I don’t know for sure but think there are.

Well, obviously Matt 24 says “as it was in the days of Noah…” so parallels are certainly in view already via the text. Maybe there is more than just the obvious parallels from which we can tell what it means in Matt 24:38 by “they”? I think you have brought up a good study. And I’ll try to respect how you’ve limited it.

One thing about Gen 3 and Gen 6, is that it’s the same author (Moses) and the same sequence of Hebrew words used (even their same verb forms) and the sequence of events/actions/etc. seems to be the same as that used in Gen 3 (The Fall) that is used in Gen 6 (The Flood) and that we also see during the end times in Rev (The Final Judgment of which Jesus seems to be speaking of in Matt 24). We also see it at the time of Jesus’ “trail” and execution and punishment afterwards (70 A.D.) Basically a bunch (and I mean a bunch) of humans running around sinning while also being deceived (quite directly) by Satan and/or his demons. Judas being given over to Satan. Satan running around Earth deceiving people, etc.

The parallels are astounding, if you ask me. I’d also point out that it sounds pretty much like what was going on with Satan’s influence upon the Pharisees (and Judas) around the time of Jesus’ death as well.
So my specific point works on either view of Matt 24’s timeframe (that is, that Jesus meant 70 A.D. or sometime after 2012 A.D.).

But here’s my point:
‘Saw’: http://biblesuite.com/hebrew/vattere_7200.htm
‘Good/Attractive’: http://biblesuite.com/hebrew/tov_2896.htm / http://biblesuite.com/hebrew/tovot_2896.htm
‘Took’: http://biblesuite.com/hebrew/vaiyikchu_3947.htm

In Genesis 6: Somebody (“Sons of God” and “Daughters of man”, TBD if human or demonic or combination thereof): Saw something good/delightful/attractive (even though it was forbidden) and took it anyway and got punished for it.

And what punishment did “they” receive for the sin “they” performed?

Gen 6:3 Then the Lord said, “My Spirit shall not abide in man forever, for he is flesh:​

So in Gen 6, we are pretty much told the punishment for the sin was to ‘man’. I think it’s the same in Matt 24.

I think the “they” in Matt 24:38 specifically means humans. Not because there was not some demonic/satanic activity going on at the time, but precisely because there was (‘as it was in the days of Noah’ ).

It sounds just like Moses even in Gen 6 was making direct parallels to the time of Adam/Eve (Gen 3) and that’s the way it will be at the “coming of the Son of Man”. Basically because that’s the way it’s always been and always will be until the time of deception and sin is finally put to an end.
So where’s the “deceiving” of man (humans) directly from Satan and/or his demons in the Gen 6 account, if there’s a direct parallel? I could say more about the parallels between Gen 6 and Gen 3 (and to events between 33 A.D and 70 A.D., but out of respect to the specific OP topic and its limitation and request not to mention it, I will not. But just a “hint”. Could it be the very next verse?

The parallelism Jesus spoke of between Matt 24 and Noah, reminds me of the way parallelism was used in Hebrews 11:

Hebrews 11

1 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. [like faith in the second coming of Christ in any generation]
2 For by it the people of old received their commendation.
4. By faith Abel offered to God a more acceptable sacrifice than Cain [Going way back]​

5 By faith Enoch was taken up
8 By faith Abraham obeyed
23 By faith Moses
32 And what more shall I say? For time would fail me to tell of Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, of David and Samuel and the prophets—
My point is, Hebrews goes back through the Scriptures making period by period parallelism with specific past SAVED people concerning their “faith”.

I think Jesus was doing that very same thing in Matt 24. This time only using parallelisms with the lost (their actions and THEIR punishment).

But that's not to say that the deception of Satan and/or his demons were not in/around that sinfulness.

I think there once was a way for us to 'like' a post. I don't know what happened to that feature, but I like your post. A grasp of parallelism is essential to understanding the bible.

 

[Sparkey]

Mankind is not the Sons of God, we are the Sons of Adam. So when Jesus spoke of they were marrying and so forth...exactly who is Jesus speaking of? For in Genesis it is speaking of the Sons of God, so the context is on them in the days of Noah. You see my predicament?

Let's not make this a Nephilim thread, don't even mention them, it upsets too many people. I would like find out who "they" are. Stick to the topic brothers and sisters.

The "Sons of God" is the topic? My, but how we have strayed.

Consider the word of The Christ, the Only Begotten on the Subject:

John 8:42-44
New International Reader's Version (NIRV)
The Children of the Devil
Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me. I came from God, and now I am here. I have not come on my own. He sent me.

“Why aren’t my words clear to you? Because you can’t really hear what I say. You belong to your father, the devil. You want to obey your father’s wishes.

“From the beginning, the devil was a murderer. He has never obeyed the truth. There is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his natural language. He does this because he is a liar. He is the father of lies.​

I am certain that we agree that out relationship is based on the love that Jesus shows. Without Him, we have no, zero, none, not one iota of standing with God, whom we call our Father. What did Jesus say about our relationship? How is it that we are given power to become "Sons of God"? Listen again to the words you know well:

Matthew 12:46-50
New International Version (NIV)
Jesus’ Mother and Brothers
While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. Someone told him, “Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you.”

He replied to him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” Pointing to his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers. For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”​

If your premise is that angels may have fell from grace and actually committed fornication with the "daughters of men" and if I understand you correctly, I must strenuously object to calling evil good or god. They are neither gods nor sons of the One True God. I don't wanna be like them, I want to become more and more like Jesus, the Only True and Worthy. The King of kings and Prince of peace.

Help me in this, brother. I humbly implore you.

In Christ, and as given to you,
Sparrow

 

[Deborah13]

http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/8171#showrashi=true

Hassidic Jews interpret the passage this way:

That the sons of the nobles saw the daughters of man when they were beautifying themselves, and they took for themselves wives from whomever they chose.

Rashi states:
the sons of the nobles: Heb. בְּנֵי הָאֱלֹהִים, the sons of the princes (Targumim) and the judges (Gen. Rabbah 26:5). Another explanation: בְּנֵי הָאֱלֹהִים are the princes who go as messengers of the Omnipresent. They too mingled with them (Pirkei d’Rabbi Eliezer, ch. 22). Every אֱלֹהִים in Scripture is an expression of authority, and the following proves it (Exod. 4:16): “And you shall be to him as a lord (לֵאלֹהִים)”; (ibid. 7:1): “See, I have made you a lord (אֶלֹהִים).”

when they were beautifying themselves: Heb., טֹבֹת. Said Rabbi Judan: It is written טבת [i.e., instead of טובות. Thus it can be read טָבַת, meaning to beautify.] When they would beautify her, adorned to enter the nuptial canopy, a noble would enter and have relations with her first (Gen. Rabbah 26:5).

from whomever they chose: Even a married woman, even males and animals (Gen. Rabbah ad loc.).

Something else to consider. If we are seeking truth on the matter, then we must realize that there are differing opinions on interpretation so we ought to be respectful of those we disagree with.

Something else to at least think about... As the OP already stated, Adam was called the son of God, because being made in the likeness and image of God, Adam represented God. Adam fell due to willful disobedience and as a result, death entered the world. This picture is mirrored in the flood naritive. But we also see the story playing out again through the Exodus where in Chapter 4 God calls Israel "His Son". By right, wouldn't the individual members of Israel then be "sons of God" if indeed God is calling them His son? Even Psalms 80 depicts Israel as God's son.

Now Jesus, he was God's only begotten son. Hence, the second Adam accomplishing all that the first son and subsequent sons could not do and thereby reconciling all things unto himself.

This part of your post made me think of this scripture from the NT.

Php_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;

IF, the sons of God in Genesis 6 were Godly men who married un-Godly women causing perversions, this may have been why when God gave the Law to Moses He forbid them to marry outside of their own nation.

For what it's worth, one can accept or reject what's put forth for whatever reasons considered justifiable. I shall now recede into the background.

Grace and Peace.

 

[JLB]

I agree we should never ignore or dismiss any scripture and that an honest study can be done of all views. Because you brought up about it being Hebrew I have quote some of the Hebrew writings on the subject.
So this quote is from the Jewish Virtual Library.
"The "sons of God" are explained in the Targum to Genesis 6:4 and the Midrash (Gen. R. 26:5) as young aristocrats who married the daughters of commoners. The Targum renders both gibborim and Nephilim by gibbaraya; the Midrash (Gen. R. 26:7) lists seven names applied to giants. The Babylonian Talmud mentions the names of Shamhazzai, Uzza, and Uzziel, the leaders of the fallen *angels in Enoch, but does not say that they were angels: Yoma 67b alludes to the sins of Uzza and Uzziel; Niddah 61a states that Sihon and Og were descendants of Shamhazzai. In Deuteronomy 3:11 *Og is described as a giant, and this theme was developed to a large degree in aggadic legend. In post-talmudic literature (cf. Rashi, Yoma 67b) the long-suppressed myth came to the surface again. The Palestinian Targum gives the orthodox rendering of Genesis 6:1, but translates verse 4 as: "Shamhazzai and Uzziel fell from heaven and were on earth in those days"–identifying the Nephilim as the fallen angels rather than their children. The same identification is found in a late Midrash, which calls the fallen angels Uzza and Uzziel; another passage in the same document says the Nephilim were descendants of Cain (Aggadat Bereshit, ed. S. Buber, introd., p. 38). The Zohar (1:58a) also identifies the Nephilim with the fallen angels. The standard medieval Bible commentators generally followed the classical aggadah in rejecting the mythological interpretation and asserting that the marriages in Genesis 6 were human. Some variant opinions about the "sons of God" are offered–e.g., that their distinction was not only social, but physical and even moral, and that the offspring were called Nephilim because they "fell short" of their fathers in these respects (Nahmanides, Abrabanel). http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0015_0_14693.html

Here's a scripture that I believe attests to the fact that there were very large people living during that time. I don't believe they were large because of a debilitating genetic disorder as we see in people today that are abnormally large. We know that Goliath and his four brothers were mighty warrior, not clumsy, slow, and in pain.

Deu 3:11 For only Og king of Bashan remained of the remnant of giants; behold, his bedstead was a bedstead of iron; is it not in Rabbath of the children of Ammon? nine cubits was the length thereof, and four cubits the breadth of it, after the cubit of a man.
cubit = approx. 18" , 9 cubits = 13.5 ft., 4 cubits = 6 ft.
That's a very large bed and strong, made of iron.

Is your conclusion, that sons of noblemen married daughters of commoners and their offspring were giants?

The same 15 foot giants that the children of Israel were to destroy and drive from the promise land..

Goliath the giant with six fingers and six toes?

JLB

 

[Deborah13]

Is your conclusion, that sons of noblemen married daughters of commoners and their offspring were giants?

The same 15 foot giants that the children of Israel were to destroy and drive from the promise land..

Goliath the giant with six fingers and six toes?

JLB

I'm not drawing any conclusions. I am sharing information that may be of value to the discussion. Hopefully, to show that there more options than just one.
I don't know what your point is about Goliath having six toes. Are you saying something about people born with extra digits?
Wow, 15 ft. that's tall. Goliath was 9ft, wasn't he?

 

[JLB]

I'm not drawing any conclusions. I am sharing information that may be of value to the discussion. Hopefully, to show that there more options than just one.
I don't know what your point is about Goliath having six toes. Are you saying something about people born with extra digits?
Wow, 15 ft. that's tall. Goliath was 9ft, wasn't he?

I am saying that the offspring of Human beings does not produce a race of Giants called Nephilim.

 

[TimothyW]

From the OP:

Let's not make this a Nephilim thread, don't even mention them, it upsets too many people. I would like find out who "they" are. Stick to the topic brothers and sisters.