What are the Nephlim?

[BobRyan]

Bible Scholars have long noted this consistent reading of the Genesis 6 text with the insights that we have from Christ on the fact that no such "breeding" or "family relationships" are possible for angels.

John Wesley

Gen 6
Verse 1
Men began to multiply upon the face of the earth - This was the effect of the blessing, Genesis 1:28, and yet man's corruption so abused this blessing, that it turned into a curse.
Verse 2
The sons of God - Those who were called by the name of the Lord, and called upon that name, married the daughters of men - Those that were profane, and strangers to God. The posterity of Seth did not keep to themselves as they ought, but intermingled with the race of Cain: they took them wives of all that they chose - They chose only by the eye: They saw that they were fair - Which was all they looked at.
http://www.studylight.org/com/wen/view. ... hapter=006

Adam Clarke –

Notes on Chapter 6
Verse 1. When men began to multiply
It was not at this time that men began to multiply, but the inspired penman speaks now of a fact which had taken place long before. As there is a distinction made here between men and those called the sons of God, it is generally supposed that the immediate posterity of Cain and that of Seth are intended.[/b]

The first were mere men, such as fallen nature may produce, degenerate sons of a degenerate father, governed by the desire of the flesh, the desire of the eye, and the pride of life. The others were sons of God, not angels, as some have dreamed, but such as were, according to our Lord's doctrine, born again, born from above, John 3:3,5,6 and made children of God by the influence of the Holy Spirit, Galatians 5:6. The former were apostates from the true religion, the latter were those among whom it was preserved and cultivated.
Dr. Wall supposes the first verses of this chapter should be paraphrased thus: "When men began to multiply on the earth, the chief men took wives of all the handsome poor women they chose. There were tyrants in the earth in those days; and also after the antediluvian days powerful men had unlawful connections with the inferior women, and the children which sprang from this illicit commerce were the renowned heroes of antiquity, of whom the heathens made their gods."
http://www.studylight.org/com/acc/view. ... hapter=006

JFB – Jamieson Fausset Brown
2. the sons of God saw the daughters of men--By the former is meant the family of Seth, who were professedly religious; by the latter, the descendants of apostate Cain. Mixed marriages between parties of opposite principles and practice were necessarily sources of extensive corruption. The women, religious themselves, would as wives and mothers exert an influence fatal to the existence of religion in their household, and consequently the people of that later age sank to the lowest depravity.
3. flesh--utterly, hopelessly debased.
And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive--Christ, as God, had by His Spirit inspiring Enoch, Noah, and perhaps other prophets (1Pe 3:20; 2Pe 2:5; Jude 14), preached repentance to the antediluvians; but they were incorrigible.
http://www.studylight.org/com/jfb/view. ... hapter=006

 

[BobRyan]

As you can see the scholarship on this goes all the way back to the reformation -

John Gill

Genesis 6:1

And it came to pass, when men began to multiply upon the face of the earth…

Either mankind in general, or rather the posterity of Cain, who were mere natural men, such as they were when born into the world, and as brought up in it, destitute of the grace of God, and of the knowledge and fear of him; and who in proportion much more multiplied than the posterity of Seth, because of the practice of polygamy, which by the example of Lamech, one of that race, might prevail among them: and daughters were born unto them;
not daughters only, but sons also, though it may be more daughters than sons, or it may denote remarkable ones, for their beauty or immodesty, or both; and chiefly this is observed for the sake of what follows.
http://www.studylight.org/com/geb/view. ... &verse=001

Genesis 6:2
That the sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were fair…

Or "good" F11, not in a moral but natural sense; goodly to look upon, of a beautiful aspect; and they looked upon, and only regarded their external beauty, and lusted after them: those "sons of God" were not angels either good or bad, as many have thought, since they are incorporeal beings, and cannot be affected with fleshly lusts, or marry and be given in marriage, or generate and be generated; nor the sons of judges, magistrates, and great personages, nor they themselves, as the Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan, and so Jarchi and Aben Ezra; but this could be no crime in them, to look upon and take in marriage such persons, though they were the daughters of the meaner sort; and supposing they acted a criminal part in looking at them, and lusting after them, and committing fornication with them, and even in marrying irreligious persons; yet this could only be a partial, not an universal corruption, as is after affirmed, though such examples must indeed have great influence upon the populace; but rather this is to be understood of the posterity of Seth, who from the times of Enos, when then began to be called by the name of the Lord, (Genesis 4:25) had the title of the sons of God, in distinction from the children of men; these claimed the privilege of divine adoption, and professed to be born of God, and partakers of his grace, and pretended to worship him according to his will, so far as revealed to them, and to fear and serve and glorify him. According to the Arabic writers F12, immediately after the death of Adam the family of Seth was separated from the family of Cain; Seth took his sons and their wives to a high mountain (Hermon), on the top of which Adam was buried, and Cain and all his sons lived in the valley beneath, where Abel was slain; and they on the mountain obtained a name for holiness and purity, and were so near the angels that they could hear their voices and join their hymns with them; and they, their wives and their children, went by the common name of the sons of God: and now these were adjured, by Seth and by succeeding patriarchs, by no means to go down from the mountain and join the Cainites; but notwithstanding in the times of Jared some did go down, it seems; (See Gill on 5:20) and after that others, and at this time it became general; and being taken with the beauty of the daughters of Cain and his posterity, they did as follows: and they took them wives of all that they chose;
http://www.studylight.org/com/geb/view. ... &verse=002

Matthew Henry
Genesis 6:1-2
1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, 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.
For the glory of God's justice, and for warning to a wicked world, before the history of the ruin of the old world, we have a full account of its degeneracy, its apostasy from God and rebellion against him. The destroying of it was an act, not of an absolute sovereignty, but of necessary justice, for the maintaining of the honour of God's government. Now here we have an account of two things which occasioned the wickedness of the old world:-- 1. The increase of mankind: Men began to multiply upon the face of the earth. This was the effect of the blessing (Genesis 1:28), and yet man's corruption so abused and perverted this blessing that it was turned into a curse. Thus sin takes occasion by the mercies of God to be the more exceedingly sinful. Proverbs 29:16, When the wicked are multiplied, transgression increaseth. The more sinners the more sin; and the multitude of offenders emboldens men. Infectious diseases are most destructive in populous cities; and sin is a spreading leprosy. Thus in the New-Testament church, when the number of the disciples was multiplied, there arose a murmuring (Acts 6:1), and we read of a nation that was multiplied, not to the increase of their joy, Isaiah 9:3. Numerous families need to be well-governed, lest they become wicked families. 2. Mixed marriages (Genesis 6:2): The sons of God (that is, the professors of religion, who were called by the name of the Lord, and called upon that name), married the daughters of men, that is, those that were profane, and strangers to God and godliness. The posterity of Seth did not keep by themselves, as they ought to have done, both for the preservation of their own purity and in detestation of the apostasy. They intermingled themselves with the excommunicated race of Cain: They took them wives of all that they chose. But what was amiss in these marriages? (1.) They chose only by the eye: They saw that they were fair, which was all they looked at. (2.) They followed the choice which their own corrupt affections made: they took all that they chose, without advice and consideration. But, (3.) That which proved of such bad consequence to them was that they married strange wives, were unequally yoked with unbelievers, 2 Corinthians 6:14. This was forbidden to Israel, Deuteronomy 7:3,4. It was the unhappy occasion of Solomon's apostasy (1 Kings 11:1-4), and was of bad consequence to the Jews after their return out of Babylon, Ezra 9:1,2. Note, Professors of religion, in marrying both themselves and their children, should make conscience of keeping within the bounds of profession. The bad will sooner debauch the good than the good reform the bad. Those that profess themselves the children of God must not marry without his consent, which they have not if they join in affinity with his enemies.
http://www.studylight.org/com/mhc-com/v ... hapter=006

John Calvin

Gen 6
1. And it came to pass, when men began to multiply. Moses, having enumerated in order, ten patriarchs, with whom the worship of God remained pure, now relates, that their families also were corrupted. But this narration must be traced to an earlier period than the five hundredth year of Noah. For, in order to make a transition to the history of the deluge, he prefaces it by declaring the whole world to have been so corrupt, that scarcely anything was left to God, out of the widely spread defection. That this may be the more apparent, the principle is to be kept in memory, that the world was then as if divided into two parts; because the family of Seth cherished the pure and lawful worship of Good, from which the rest had fallen. Now, although all mankind had been formed for the worship of God, and therefore sincere religion ought everywhere to have reigned; yet since the greater part had prostituted itself, either to an entire contempt of God, or to depraved superstitions; it was fitting that the small portion which God had adopted, by special privilege, to himself, should remain separate from others. It was, therefore, base ingratitude in the posterity of Seth, to mingle themselves with the children of Cain, and with other profane races; because they voluntarily deprived themselves of the inestimable grace of God. For it was an intolerable profanation, to pervert, and to confound, the order appointed by God. It seems at first sight frivolous, that the sons of God should be so severely condemned, for having chosen for themselves beautiful wives from the daughters of men. But we must know first, that it is not a light crime to violate a distinction established by the Lord; secondly, that for the worshippers of God to be separated from profane nations, was a sacred appointment which ought reverently to have been observed, in order that a Church of God might exist upon earth;

http://www.ccel.org/c/calvin/comment3/c ... tm/xii.htm

 

[BobRyan]

The 'sons of God' <בני (×â€)×Âל×â€Ã—™×Â> refers to a pantheon of divine beings (i.e., gods, not mere 'angels') that came down from the sky and copulated with the human women thereby producing giant offspring.
viewtopic.php?f=14&t=32855&st=0&sk=t&sd=a#p395199

No such thing in all of scripture. In the Bible there is only one God. There is no text in all of scripture using the term "sons of God" to mean "Greek Pantheon of divine beings - gods".

Though I am sure that Homer would have loved to have such vallidation of his story telling.

Wavy
[quote:g2lunvt6]1. In Matt 22 Jesus states clearly that angels do not form family units not even with themsevles much less with other species!

These words, whether Jesus said them or not, is far removed from the milieu in which Genesis was written and is irrelevant to interpreting it in its own context and cultural setting.
viewtopic.php?f=14&t=32855&st=0&sk=t&sd=a#p395199
[/quote:g2lunvt6]

This get's to the point of exegesis AND of "Bible believing Christians" where the view is that Christ is God as scripture clearly states, that the Bible is trustworthy such that the writers record the truth not lies.

Bob

 

[wavy]

This has nothing to do with my presuppositions and everything to do with yours. I am merely showing that the immediate contexts of certain verses, or a certain verse, refute your interpretation of that verse. You are inserting a meaning into Deut. 32:8 that is completely unwarranted and unsupportable.

What 'presuppositions' would those be?

They are completely relevant since the NT is an extension of the OT. There is no NT without the OT.

You apparently don't understand what isagogics are. The NT documents were written long after any of the books of the Hebrew bible (perhaps with the exception of Daniel) and by this time (i.e., the time the NT was written) in Near Eastern history, the cultural significance of certain words, thoughts, and ideas had changed. To take the writings of the NT by different authors and impose their understanding upon our target text (namely, Genesis vi) is anachronistic and shows a deficient capacity for appreciating the field of literary criticism.

And as I stated, if Jesus made a truth claim about angels, that they cannot procreate, then that is true for all times and in all places.

i) Jesus lived during NT times and therefore his views on angels (assuming he said this) are irrelevant, as it turns out, to the text in question (Genesis vi). And I hardly take what a Jewish preacher says in a theological text as 'true for all times and in all places'. Such a position derives from your presuppositions about who and what Jesus is and are also irrelevant to the text in question (written at a time when there was no Jesus).

ii) The 'sons of God' in Genesis were not 'angels'. That is a later understanding being imposed upon the phrase which had a specific meaning in the period in which this portion of Genesis was written.

No. The argument isn't whether 'sons of God' is used in any of the Scriptures, rather it is your erroneous and unjustifiable interpretation of 'sons of God'. As I stated, the immediate context is clearly referring to the Israelites; but the entire book is about God's dealings with the Israelites, so to say that 'sons of God' is referring to divine beings, is to insert a meaning utterly foreign:

In addition to your deficient understanding of isagogics and literary criticism, you also demonstrate a rather poor understanding of ANE history:

In its probably original wording, reconstructed from 4QDeutj and LXX, the Song of Moses referred to an assembly of gods (cf. Psalm 82; 1 Kgs 22:19), in which "the Most High, 'Elyon, fixed the boundaries of peoples according to the number of the sons of the God El." The next verses stresses that the LORD, ×™×â€Ã—•×â€, kept Israel for himself. Within the supposed original context, 'Elyon and El need not be taken as epithets of the God of Israel, but as names of gods also known from the Canaanite and Ugaritic pantheon. It appears, however, that the scribe of an early text, now reflected in MT SP T S V, did not feel at ease with this possibly polytheistic picture and replaced "sons of El" with בני ישר×Âל, "the sons of Israel," thus giving the text a different direction by the change of one word.
--Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, pg. 269.

I'm running out of time now, but if you'd like to keep an open mind and actually learn something about this passage and the context in which it was written, feel free (no pun intended) just to say so and I'll recommend you some books about the 'divine council' in ANE literature. But for a brief taste, what this text is saying is that when the head of the pantheon, 'El', divided the boundries of the nations he did so according to the number of his sons, which were the gods of the nations, and Yahweh, one of his sons, took the nation of Israel for himself (Baal, Chemosh, etc. receiving the portion of their corresponding nations).

Will return later.

Thanks,
Eric

 

[Paidion]

The 'sons of God' <בני (×â€)×Âל×â€Ã—™×Â> refers to a pantheon of divine beings (i.e., gods, not mere 'angels') that came down from the sky and copulated with the human women thereby producing giant offspring.

No such thing in all of scripture. In the Bible there is only one God. There is no text in all of scripture using the term "sons of God" to mean "Greek Pantheon of divine beings - gods".

Bob, perhaps you should read Psalm 82:

A Psalm of Asaph. God has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods he holds judgment: "How long will you judge unjustly and show partiality to the wicked? Selah
Give justice to the weak and the fatherless; maintain the right of the afflicted and the destitute. Rescue the weak and the needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked."

They have neither knowledge nor understanding, they walk about in darkness; all the foundations of the earth are shaken.

I say, "You are gods, sons of the Most High, all of you; nevertheless, you shall die like men, and fall like any prince."

If these "gods --- sons of the Most High" are mere Israelites, then they ARE men, and they will die AS men --- not LIKE men.

 

[Carol Lowery]

Hey guys there's some great blogs on youtube.com and godtube.com on the Nephilim giants, and the discovery of the skeletons. They're ranging up to 36 or 39 feet. There was one in particular of two of them laying together holding each others hands, and the size of them was just unbelieveable. But check it out....it's really something. Just be careful of rabbit holes.

Kudos HIM,
Carol <><

 

[wavy]

No such thing in all of scripture. In the Bible there is only one God. There is no text in all of scripture using the term "sons of God" to mean "Greek Pantheon of divine beings - gods".

Though I am sure that Homer would have loved to have such vallidation of his story telling.

Unfortunately for you I said nothing of a 'Greek' pantheon, so you can burn down that straw man as much as you like. See my rejoinder to Free above, and while you're at it, I'd suggest to you, in addition to passages cited in my quote and other passages suggested by other users, passages like Genesis i.26 Exodus xii.12; xv.11, and the LXX version of Deuteronomy ix.26 (which undoubtedly reflects the original reading here) to see vestiges of Israel's ancient polytheism.

Thanks,
Eric

 

[n2thelight]

Appendixes to The Companion Bible

25. THE NEPHILIM, OR "GIANTS" OF GEN. 6

The progeny of the fallen angels with the daughters of Adam (see notes on Gen. 6, and Ap. 23) are called in Gen. 6, Ne-phil-im, which means fallen ones (from naphal, to fall). What these beings were can be gathered only from Scripture. They were evidently great in size, as well as great in wickedness. They were superhuman, abnormal beings; and their destruction was necessary for the preservation of the human race, and for the faithfulness of Jehovah's Word (Gen. 3:15).

This was why the Flood was brought "upon the world of the ungodly" (2Pet. 2:5) as prophesied by Enoch (Jude 14).

But we read of the Nephilim again in Num. 13:33 : "there we saw the Nephilim, the sons of Anak, which come of the Nephilim". How, it may be asked, could this be, if they were all destroyed in the Flood? The answer is contained in Gen. 6:4, where we read : "There were Nephilim in the earth in those days (i.e. in the days of Noah); 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 [the] mighty men (Heb. gibbor, the heroes) which were of old, men of renown" (lit. men of the name, i.e. who got a name and were renowned for their ungodliness).

So that "after that", i.e. after the Flood, there was a second irruption of these fallen angels, evidently smaller in number and more limited in area, for they were for the most part confined to Canaan, and were in fact known as "the nations of Canaan". It was for the destruction of these, that the sword of Israel was necessary, as the Flood had been before.

As to the date of this second irruption, it was evidently soon after it became known that the seed was to come through Abraham; for, when he came out from Haran (Gen. 12:6) and entered Canaan, the significant fact is stated : "The Canaanite was then (i.e. already) in the land." And in Gen. 14:5 they were already known as "Raphain" and Emim", and had established themselves at Asteroth Karnaim and Shaven Kiriathaim.

In ch. 15:18-21 they are enumerated and named among Canaanite Peoples : "Kenites, and the Kenizzites, and the Kadmonites, and the Hittites, and the Perizzites, and the Rephaims, and the Amorites, and the Girgashites, and the Jebusites" (Gen. 15:19-21; cp. Ex. 3:8, 17; 23:23. Deut. 7; 20:17. Josh. 12:8).

These were to be cut off, and driven out, and utterly destroyed (Deut. 20:17. Josh. 3:10). But Israel failed in this (Josh. 13:13; 15:63; 16:10; 17:18. Judg. 1:19, 20, 28, 29, 30-36; 2:1-5; 3:1-7); and we known not how many got away to other countries to escape the general destruction. If this were recognized it would go far to solve many problems connected with Anthropology.


Please read the rest here

http://www.angelfire.com/nv/TheOliveBra ... end25.html

 

[Rick W]

Isaiah 43:10 Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

Isa 44:6 Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.

Isa 45:5 I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me:
Isa 45:6 That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the LORD, and there is none else.

Isa 46:9 Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me,

Isa 45:14 Thus saith the LORD, The labour of Egypt, and merchandise of Ethiopia and of the Sabeans, men of stature, shall come over unto thee, and they shall be thine: they shall come after thee; in chains they shall come over, and they shall fall down unto thee, they shall make supplication unto thee, saying, Surely God is in thee; and there is none else, there is no God.

Deu 4:35 Unto thee it was shewed, that thou mightest know that the LORD he is God; there is none else beside him.

James 2:19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.

Joel 2:27 And ye shall know that I am in the midst of Israel, and that I am the LORD your God, and none else: and my people shall never be ashamed.


God does have a council, His heavenly court, as seen in Genesis.

Also:
All through scripture we see Asherah being worshiped as in the era of the kings for example. Asherah was even introduced into the temple during the reign of King Solomon. In fact, we see Asherah being installed and removed several times during his reign. One king would do good in God's eyes in that He proclaimed allegiance to one God removing Asherah and burning the altars thereof. Then another king would do wrong in God's eyes setting up the worship of Asherah again. There were those in Israel that worshiped many gods from one time to the next. God even called them a stiff-necked people. They'd recognize God as the one and only then later on turn around and fall back into pagan worship again. This happened many times throughout scripture. Therefore we see God's admonishments over and over that He is the one and only God. But one cannot say they were polytheistic because they weren't all the time and certainly they were taught there is but one God throughout their history. Did they listen? Sometimes. And sometimes no.
We see their recognition of one God in Genesis up to when Moses went up the mountain for the Ten Commandments. They were monotheistic. But again they turned to pagan worship as seen with the golden calf worshiping multiple gods again.

 

[Rick W]

One can't judge the teachings of scripture by the actions of the people. The books of the prophets demonstrate this. The prophets Ezekiel, Jeremiah, Isaiah and the rest certainly weren't sent by God to lavish praise on the people of Israel.

 

[wavy]

Isaiah 43:10 Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

Isa 44:6 Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.

Isa 45:5 I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me:
Isa 45:6 That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the LORD, and there is none else.

Isa 46:9 Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me,

Isa 45:14 Thus saith the LORD, The labour of Egypt, and merchandise of Ethiopia and of the Sabeans, men of stature, shall come over unto thee, and they shall be thine: they shall come after thee; in chains they shall come over, and they shall fall down unto thee, they shall make supplication unto thee, saying, Surely God is in thee; and there is none else, there is no God.

Deu 4:35 Unto thee it was shewed, that thou mightest know that the LORD he is God; there is none else beside him.

James 2:19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.

Joel 2:27 And ye shall know that I am in the midst of Israel, and that I am the LORD your God, and none else: and my people shall never be ashamed.

Invoking monotheistic verses in the bible does not, somehow, erase the clear verses of affirmed polytheism (of the henotheistic ilk) elsewhere in the earlier literature. All the verses you cited are from the post-exilic era, mainly from Deutero-Isaiah, and it is generally acknowledged by scholars that by that time, Israel was leaning more towards monotheism. So you quoting them is quite irrelevant to the older texts in question where polytheism is self-evident in the literature.

Also....They were monotheistic. But again they turned to pagan worship as seen with the golden calf worshiping multiple gods again.

There are a few historical inaccuracies I could point out here, but generally I wanted to state that you're appealing to narrations where the worship of other gods at least (not by default belief in their existence) is clearly condemned. The texts I cited are apparently the sentiments of the author writing them, and in these cases, obviously, there is no condemnation. For preliminary reading material I would suggest to you:

The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel's Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts, 2003, by Mark S. Smith

Thanks,
Eric

 

[BobRyan]

The 'sons of God' <בני (×â€)×Âל×â€Ã—™×Â> refers to a pantheon of divine beings (i.e., gods, not mere 'angels') that came down from the sky and copulated with the human women thereby producing giant offspring.

No such thing in all of scripture. In the Bible there is only one God. There is no text in all of scripture using the term "sons of God" to mean "Greek Pantheon of divine beings - gods".

Bob, perhaps you should read Psalm 82:

A Psalm of Asaph. God has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods he holds judgment: "How long will you judge unjustly and show partiality to the wicked? Selah
,,,
I say, "You are gods, sons of the Most High, all of you; nevertheless, you shall die like men, and fall like any prince."

If these "gods --- sons of the Most High" are mere Israelites, then they ARE men, and they will die AS men --- not LIKE men.

[/quote]

John 10 has your answer - Christ tells us specifically that it was a statement TO the people of Israel -

John 10
34 Jesus answered them, "Has it not been written in your Law, 'I SAID, YOU ARE GODS'? (Ps 82:6)
35"If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken),
36do you say of Him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, 'You are blaspheming,' because I said, 'I am the Son of God'?
37"If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me;
38but if I do them, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, so that you may know and understand that the Father is in Me, and I in the Father."

Nothing here about Homer's "pantheon of gods". Greek legends and mythology can not be inserted into the text.

Hosea 1:10
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 sons of the living God.

Showing us clearly that the Bible scholars already quoted "here" are correct!
viewtopic.php?f=14&t=32855&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=15#p395331

Just as the texts listed here agree with the Bible scholarship and the concept of God's people being the sons of God - as seen in Hos 1 above.

viewtopic.php?f=14&t=32855&st=0&sk=t&sd=a#p394894

So that means Christ was right!
Paul was right as we see above!
Hosea was right as we see in the quote above!
And the Bible scholars quoted at that link above are correct!

This could not be any easier!


Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Invoking monotheistic verses in the bible does not, somehow, erase the clear verses of affirmed polytheism (of the henotheistic ilk) elsewhere in the earlier literature. All the verses you cited are from the post-exilic era,

That is the kind of slice-and-dice pick-and-choose eisegesis that exegesis is designed to cut out. Part of the issue in rendering the text is to admit that the whole of scripture (rather than myopic disconnected sections taken to bend and wrench to your bias) as it speaks to the topic is applicable.

Hint all the books of Moses except for possibly Genesis and Job were written AFTER the Exodus. Slicing up books by when they were written and arguing that no other texts can apply as they speak to the same subject in a way that that clearly refutes your wild speculative rendering of the text - is good humanism but not good exegesis.

Your response shows a bias toward viewing scripture as a disconnected corrupt text in a kinda "Aesop's fables" revisionism so often promoted by our atheist friends.

Not a solution that Bible believing Christians are likely to embrace any time soon.

Bob

 

[wavy]

John 10 has your answer - Christ tells us specifically that it was a statement TO the people of Israel -

Again, assuming Jesus actually said this, it should be pointed out that nowhere is his 'interpretation', recorded centuries after, found in the text, which is straighforwardly referring to 'gods' in the divine council/assembly (God himself standing in the midst of them; see verse 1).

Nothing here about Homer's "pantheon of gods". Greek legends and mythology can not be inserted into the text.

Again, I see you've erroneously confounded the pantheon of gods in ANE legend with Greek legend, building yet another straw man.

Showing us clearly that the Bible scholars already quoted "here" are correct!
viewtopic.php?f=14&t=32855&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=15#p395331

Just as the texts listed here agree with the Bible scholarship and the concept of God's people being the sons of God - as seen in Hos 1 above.

The interpretations of a handful of conservative theologians does not represent 'bible scholarship' as a whole and for you to say as much is simply intellectual dishonesty. And there are yet more problems with your dishonesty:

i) Nowwhere does Genesis vi equate the 'sons of God' with the descendants of Seth.

ii) The union of mortal human beings does not poduce giant offspring (which has already been shown to you).

iii) Your quote from Hosea reads 'sons of the living God', not 'sons of God', which is entirely different Hebrew idiom for the divine beings in every other place in the Hebrew bible (just insert the 'sons of Seth' or 'Israel' for 'sons of God' in Job xxxviii.8, for example, and you'll see what Imean).

So that means Christ was right!
Paul was right as we see above!
Hosea was right as we see in the quote above!
And the Bible scholars quoted at that link above are correct!

I'm afraid not. See unassailed rebuttals above.

Thanks,
Eric

 

[wavy]

That is the kind of slice-and-dice pick-and-choose eisegesis that exegesis is designed to cut out. Part of the issue in rendering the text is to admit that the whole of scripture (rather than myopic disconnected sections taken to bend and wrench to your bias) as it speaks to the topic is applicable.

I think you have it backwards. I have no bias. My conclusions are based off the sound principles of literary criticism. The assumed unity of the bible is a pressuppostion of faith and your bias, which demands we make special pleas for the bible instead of treating it how it should be treated: as a compilation of literary works spanning centuries of time and setting.

Hint all the books of Moses except for possibly Genesis and Job were written AFTER the Exodus. Slicing up books by when they were written and arguing that no other texts can apply as they speak to the same subject in a way that that clearly refutes your wild speculative rendering of the text - is good humanism but not good exegesis.

Your response shows a bias toward viewing scripture as a disconnected corrupt text in a kinda "Aesop's fables" revisionism so often promoted by our atheist friends.

Not a solution that Bible believing Christians are likely to embrace any time soon.

Your childish, misrepresentative and dishonest argumentation no longer merits any serious reply.

Thanks,
Eric

 

[Rick W]

The assumed unity of the bible is a pressuppostion of faith and your bias, which demands we make special pleas for the bible instead of treating it how it should be treated: as a compilation of literary works spanning centuries of time and setting.

"compilation of literary works spanning centuries of time and setting."
true
The bible is composed of 66 books and 40 authors. There is unity of the bible if one cares to seek out harmony. However, if it's one's will to search for disharmony then that too is by faith and your bias basing "Israel's Polytheistic Background" on Israel, what the people were doing, their sinful ways. If indeed Israel finally became monotheistic then it follows they had to get it from somewhere. Remember, they were rebellious all through scripture not wanting to follow God's teachings.
Isaiah clearly demonstrates God's intent that the people know and understand there is but one God and none else and "before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me." Yet it's your claim God taught otherwise and changed His mind somewhere along the line.

 

[Free]

What 'presuppositions' would those be?

Let's start with "not a Christian". Your atheism which naturally lends itself to a liberal/hyper-liberal approach to Scripture. You approach Scripture presuming that there is no God, no supernatural, which will bring you to erroneous conclusions.

The NT documents were written long after any of the books of the Hebrew bible (perhaps with the exception of Daniel) and by this time (i.e., the time the NT was written) in Near Eastern history, the cultural significance of certain words, thoughts, and ideas had changed.

Provide some specific examples, other than the supposed one we are discussing. That the NT was written long after the OT is of little consequence.

To take the writings of the NT by different authors and impose their understanding upon our target text (namely, Genesis vi) is anachronistic and shows a deficient capacity for appreciating the field of literary criticism.

The NT is a continuation of the story that beings in Genesis 1. Without the OT the NT losing most, if not all, of its meaning. Likewise, the NT brings out a much richer and fuller understanding of the OT.

i) Jesus lived during NT times and therefore his views on angels (assuming he said this) are irrelevant, as it turns out, to the text in question (Genesis vi).

Not at all. The onus is on you to prove that the understanding of angels changed from Gen 6 to the NT.

And I hardly take what a Jewish preacher says in a theological text as 'true for all times and in all places'. Such a position derives from your presuppositions about who and what Jesus is and are also irrelevant to the text in question (written at a time when there was no Jesus).

Here you go again arguing to my presuppositions while ignoring your own. If the Bible is inspired of God, then the truth claims it makes are true. As a whole, if it implies in one part that angels are sexless, then it is true for the whole. Whatever any of God's apostles, prophets or teachers states in Scripture is held to be true, especially Jesus who is much more than "a Jewish preacher", he is God.

ii) The 'sons of God' in Genesis were not 'angels'. That is a later understanding being imposed upon the phrase which had a specific meaning in the period in which this portion of Genesis was written.

I am not claiming that it refers to angels--it refers to men of a certain position or lineage.

shows a deficient capacity for appreciating the field of literary criticism....In addition to your deficient understanding of isagogics and literary criticism, you also demonstrate a rather poor understanding of ANE history:...but if you'd like to keep an open mind and actually learn something about this passage

You don't know everything and you certainly may not be right in everything you think you know, so get off your high-horse and debate nicely.

But for a brief taste, what this text is saying is that when the head of the pantheon, 'El', divided the boundries of the nations he did so according to the number of his sons, which were the gods of the nations, and Yahweh, one of his sons, took the nation of Israel for himself (Baal, Chemosh, etc. receiving the portion of their corresponding nations).

Thanks, I can read English. This is just one understanding of this passage, based on one textual theory. A plain reading of the text shows the context of the people of Israel, that is inescapable. Not only that, the Bible consistently portrays a monotheistic God, never a pantheon of Gods, and that one God is Yahweh.

 

[wavy]

Let's start with "not a Christian". Your atheism which naturally lends itself to a liberal/hyper-liberal approach to Scripture. You approach Scripture presuming that there is no God, no supernatural, which will bring you to erroneous conclusions.

And so I guess all criticism of any work of antiquity is 'biased' simply because they follow a set of logical principles (such as keeping things in their historical setting). If I'm 'biased' simply because I'm keeping things in their historical context, so be it. But for the record you, a priori, dismiss anything that contradicts your presuppositions of a god existing and inspiring an infallible text (a position you cannot possibly support on the basis of any objective criteria). You cannot accuse me of being 'biased' simply because I don't conform to your own presuppositions (presuppositions which require the bible to be treated differently from any other text of history or literature).

Provide some specific examples, other than the supposed one we are discussing.

You mean to tell me you can't think of a single change in *language*, *ideaology*, or *circumstances* between the periods of the two testaments? Wow...

I'm not here to educate anyone on their historical and biblical ABC's. And as it appears immediately below, you believe time, even extended periods of time (!?), have no bearing on the progression of cultural history. Hmmm...Tell me, if I placed you in 18th century America (only 200 years ago) do you think you would smugly fit in?

I think you know better and are just burying your head in the sand.

That the NT was written long after the OT is of little consequence.

Perhaps in your mind. If you don't recognize time as of any significance in cultural evolution there's little we can accomplish with this exchange.

The NT is a continuation of the story that beings in Genesis 1. Without the OT the NT losing most, if not all, of its meaning. Likewise, the NT brings out a much richer and fuller understanding of the OT

.

No, the unique story in Genesis i ended when the author/s decided they were finished or when they died and couldn't finish it. The NT itself is a compilation of documents written by different people expressing different views and in different circumstances. You apparently don't appreciate variety (or literary criticism), and your generalized assertions about the NT bringing out the full meaning of the OT are meaningless and irrelevant. Again, you base that off of your faith so your knee-jerk reply comes as no surprise.

Not at all. The onus is on you to prove that the understanding of angels changed from Gen 6 to the NT.

Please show a little sympathy for my head so I don't end up banging it against the wall on account of you not reading what I say. The whole point of my argument is that Genesis vi has nothing to do with the concept of angels. It refers to divine beings, namely, the sons of El (partially the reason why your appeal to what Jesus said about angels is irrelevant).

Here you go again arguing to my presuppositions while ignoring your own. If the Bible is inspired of God, then the truth claims it makes are true. As a whole, if it implies in one part that angels are sexless, then it is true for the whole. Whatever any of God's apostles, prophets or teachers states in Scripture is held to be true, especially Jesus who is much more than "a Jewish preacher", he is God.

If, of course, the bible were inspired then you're right...the claims it makes would be true! But again, the bible being inspired is a presupposition you hold that remains irrelevant to the objective study of and appreciation for the bible and the diversity it contains. The bible didn't drop out of the sky wholesale with indestructable golden letters reading 'I'm from God and I'm inspired'. It was written by men (at least that much no one disputes) who lived separate lives in different periods of history and its contents were laced together by men other than the authors themselves who claimed them to be inspired and authoritative. That affirmation cannot be reasonably accepted by default.

I am not claiming that it refers to angels--it refers to men of a certain position or lineage.

I know you're not claiming that. That's *your* straw man argument you erected, which is why you invoked Jesus' word on the nature of angels in attempted refutation. The problem is, which I keep trying to communicate to you, is that not only is Jesus' statement irrelevant here because of when and by whom the quotation of his words were written, it still isn't relevant because a statement by Jesus about angels doesn't address a text that's not about angels.

You don't know everything and you certainly may not be right in everything you think you know, so get off your high-horse and debate nicely.

I never said I knew everything.

Thanks, I can read English. This is just one understanding of this passage, based on one textual theory.

No, it is not based on 'one textual theory'. It's based not only on the text but is also consistent with the religious environment in which it was written, as well as with every other place in the Hebrew bible where the construct 'sons of God' is found. So it's better understood in that light. My argument stands unassailed. The transcriber who altered the text changed it because he understood its implications...why can't you?

A plain reading of the text shows the context of the people of Israel, that is inescapable.

Yes, the text is about Israel--how Israel as a nation was alloted to Yahweh while the other nations were alloted to other divine beings.

Not only that, the Bible consistently portrays a monotheistic God, never a pantheon of Gods, and that one God is Yahweh.

No, the bible does not 'consistently' portray monotheism as seen by the several irrefutably polytheistic passages that have been cited throughout this thread.

Thanks,
Eric

 

[Rick W]

Rom 8:19 For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.
Rom 8:20 For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,
Rom 8:21 Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God

Gal 4:6 And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.

1Jn 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.
1Jn 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.





John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

Rom 8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.

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;







Gen 4:9 And the LORD said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not: Am I my brother's keeper?
Gen 4:10 And he said, What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto me from the ground.
Gen 4:11 And now art thou cursed from the earth, which hath opened her mouth to receive thy brother's blood from thy hand;
Gen 4:12 When thou tillest the ground, it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength; a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth.

Gen 4:16 And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden.



Gen 4:25 And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew.
Gen 4:26 And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the LORD.



Gen 6:1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
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.





Adam and Eve begat two lines, the line of Cain and the line of Seth.
The line of Seth called upon the name of the Lord, the line of Cain did not.

Gen 6:2
Intermarriage between the two lines.

The sons of God turned from the Lord for "sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair"


John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

Rom 8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.

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;

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.
Gen 6:3 And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.
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.
Gen 6:5 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
Gen 6:6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
Gen 6:7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.
Gen 6:8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.

 

[wavy]

You guys appear not to get it. But what else could one expect? There's no sense in continuing to beat dead horses. I'm out. You all may take the last word if you wish.

Thanks,
Eric