Are you a sincere seeker who has questions about Christianity, or a Christian with doubts about your faith? Post them here to receive a thoughtful response.
PaulSacramento wrote:If God is the adversary of something, like Pharaoh, he would be the "Ha Satan" to Pharaoh.
Does that help you to understand the use of the term?
That is why:
The word is used also of various persons in the Old Testament as "adversaries, " including David ( 1 Sam 29:4 ), Rezon of Damascus ( 1 Kings 11:23 1 Kings 11:25 ), and the angel of the Lord ( Numbers 22:22 Numbers 22:32 ).
Where is the term used of God?
I said:
( since even God can be "the satan" if he is being an adversary).
And I then explained under what context it CAN be used and cited passages that show it being used of people other than "the devil", including even the Angel of the Lord.
And your reply to my point that the term can be used of anyone in an adversarial role is to ask:
"Where is the term used of God"?
You realize that was Not my point, right?
I am trying to explain that the term "ha satan" can be used of anyone and I cited the relevant passages because the term simply means "the adversary".
Are you suggesting that in all those passages that show "ha satan" it means The Devil ??
PaulSacramento wrote:If God is the adversary of something, like Pharaoh, he would be the "Ha Satan" to Pharaoh.
Does that help you to understand the use of the term?
That is why:
The word is used also of various persons in the Old Testament as "adversaries, " including David ( 1 Sam 29:4 ), Rezon of Damascus ( 1 Kings 11:23 1 Kings 11:25 ), and the angel of the Lord ( Numbers 22:22 Numbers 22:32 ).
Where is the term used of God?
I said:
( since even God can be "the satan" if he is being an adversary).
And I then explained under what context it CAN be used and cited passages that show it being used of people other than "the devil", including even the Angel of the Lord.
And your reply to my point that the term can be used of anyone in an adversarial role is to ask:
"Where is the term used of God"?
You realize that was Not my point, right?
I am trying to explain that the term "ha satan" can be used of anyone and I cited the relevant passages because the term simply means "the adversary".
Are you suggesting that in all those passages that show "ha satan" it means The Devil ??
John 5:24 24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.
“A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.”
-Edward R Murrow
St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony
Let's say that Devout Orthodox Jewsih parents have five children. One son, named John, left the family for college and then joined the Satanist Church.
The parents openly disowned the son for this act.
Are parents still the ones who conceived that fallen son or somehow is that erased when during a family gathering the other siblings came to meet their parents and also John appeared...
'And also' does not equate another species or someone unknown stranger but can include members of all who were created...
-
-
-
Science is man's invention - creation is God's
(by B. W. Melvin)
Old Polish Proverb:
Not my Circus....not my monkeys
Genesis chapter one ends and chapter two begins. It ancient writings, this is common devise used to go further into details left out prior. It is like an Addendum. Chapter two goes into more detail what Genesis 1:26-28 speaks of. From there,Genesis chapter 3 and the introduction of the Adversary posing as a serpent to beguile Adam and Eve.
When did he fall?
This theme starts again in Genesis chapter six in simple sentences: "the sons of God saw the..." and describes their plan. This is in line with the ancient textual device of backtracking to Genesis chapter three where God cursed the serpent and announced who will defeat him.
This comes back after a break to chapter six and covers a long stretch of time from chapter four and five, explaining how sin entered the world etc and etc. During that time from Able, Cain, till Noah the fallen angels wanted to stop the Messiah being born and corrupted Human DNA, animal DNA, Plant DNA. They made another race modeled after their own images and likeness and story-line which is mirrored in the ancient pagan deities/Idols histories as well as the Sumerian mythical kings exploits.
Rev 12 speaks of a war in heaven and how Satan and his followers came to earth. How Satan first drew his tails and sent his minions to earth first before he arrived.
Jude 1:6 speaks of the angels who left their first estate i.e. abandoning their home...
The evidence is clear, as well as the ancient literary device of back tracking, showing that indeed the sons of God mentioned in Genesis chapter six are fallen angels hell bent on an assignment to stop the Messiah from being born mentioned in Genesis chapter three. It deals with the time they fell to this point in human history and explains what they were up too.
Gen 6:1-4 has nothing to to with the Sethite line because Chapter 5 ends and a brand new narrative begins just like the break noticed when Gen chapter one ends and two begins. Next you have the back tracking to Genesis chapter three begins in chapter six so as to explain who the serpent is and reveal his plans to stop the 'one who will crush his head' from being born and the carrying out of these plans. Other ancient documents support this and are quoted in the book of Jude and 2 Peter.
One of the signs of the ends times is to note 'as in the Days of Noah' something to watch for and it has nothing to do with Cain's line mixing with Seth's. It has mixing of species together and making new improved human beings as is beginning now in our modern world.
Heck, even a Wisconsin company recently installed rice-sized microchips in 41 one of its employees in their hand... and such a mark is mentioned in Revelation...
Just the beginning... how things slowly fall in line without people taking real notice.
B. W. wrote:Question: When did a fallen angel ever cease to be an angel?
Question: When did scripture ever call fallen angels, "sons of God"?
For future reference, when basing something on scripture, it helps if you actually have scripture that backs your argument. When making an argument from scripture, mysticism, and non-canon text, don't take the place of actual scripture.
John 5:24 24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.
“A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.”
-Edward R Murrow
St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony
B. W. wrote:Question: When did a fallen angel ever cease to be an angel?
Question: When did scripture ever call fallen angels, "sons of God"?
For future reference, when basing something on scripture, it helps if you actually have scripture that backs your argument. When making an argument from scripture, mysticism, and non-canon text, don't take the place of actual scripture.
Jude 1:6 as does Genesis 6:1-4 and several others... as discussed already.
Where does the bible specifically say the sons of Seth mixed with the sons of Seth, Rick?
It does not - that is suggested.
Just like the word Trinity is not used in the bible does not mean its truth is not conveyed in the scriptures, Rick. You are posting a strawman argument. Do you want to go down the Trinity path again? It is not in the bible so it cann't be true is that your premise to interpret scripture. Bible interprets bible and yes, the way Genesis 6:1-4 is written it implies the state of the angels before they fell as well as what they did to fall which matches other verse from the bible that describes this.
Science is man's invention - creation is God's
(by B. W. Melvin)
Old Polish Proverb:
Not my Circus....not my monkeys
B. W. wrote:Genesis chapter one ends and chapter two begins. It ancient writings, this is common devise used to go further into details left out prior. It is like an Addendum. Chapter two goes into more detail what Genesis 1:26-28 speaks of. From there,Genesis chapter 3 and the introduction of the Adversary posing as a serpent to beguile Adam and Eve.
When did he fall?
This theme starts again in Genesis chapter six in simple sentences: "the sons of God saw the..." and describes their plan. This is in line with the ancient textual device of backtracking to Genesis chapter three where God cursed the serpent and announced who will defeat him.
Just to reiterate a point I've made a number of times earlier.
The presumption that Genesis 2 is a recapitulation of Genesis 1:26-28 is just that... an extrascriptural presumption that is forced on the text. There is nothing in the text itself to indicate that Genesis 1 and 2 are not sequential narratives, and the context and sequence of events within the narrative itself indicate that Genesis 2 is a separate event from Genesis 1:26-28.
So at the start here we see that an argument based on recapitulation and backtracking relies on imposing extrascriptural presumptions upon the text, and forcing the Genesis narrative into an unnatural sequence of events.
Rev 12 speaks of a war in heaven and how Satan and his followers came to earth. How Satan first drew his tails and sent his minions to earth first before he arrived.
Jude 1:6 speaks of the angels who left their first estate i.e. abandoning their home...
I agree with the premise that Rev 12:3-4a and Jude 1:6 are most likely referring to the fall of the angels who became demons, however the problem here is the presumption that the fall of Satan and his followers is associated with the events of Genesis 6.
(I believe Rev 12:4b is most likely a reference to the events of Mat 2:16-18)
There is nothing within the text of Genesis 6 itself that refers to the fall of Satan or any other angels. As has been noted numerous times in this thread already, referring to fallen angels as "sons of God" is antithetical to how the term "sons of God" is used everywhere else in Scripture and is contrary to the teaching of Jesus in John 8:37-47.
Also, Genesis 6 cannot be a recapitulation (or backtracking) to the fall of Satan, because Satan had fallen, and was already on the earth to tempt Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. The events of Genesis 6 take place after Adam and Eve sinned and were expelled from the Garden and after their descendants had begun to populate the region. So the fall of Satan cannot Scripturally be linked with the events of Genesis 6.
The presumption that Genesis 2 is a recapitulation of Genesis 1:26-28 is just that... an extrascriptural presumption that is forced on the text. There is nothing in the text itself to indicate that Genesis 1 and 2 are not sequential narratives, and the context and sequence of events within the narrative itself indicate that Genesis 2 is a separate event from Genesis 1:26-28.
I agree that Genesis 2 is sequential in some way.
Genesis 1 deals with the world where as genesis 2 deals with a special creation in the Garden of Eden that may/probably have happens after Genesis 1.
Also, Genesis 6 cannot be a recapitulation (or backtracking) to the fall of Satan, because Satan had fallen, and was already on the earth to tempt Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. The events of Genesis 6 take place after Adam and Eve sinned and were expelled from the Garden and after their descendants had begun to populate the region. So the fall of Satan cannot Scripturally be linked with the events of Genesis 6.
If Satan is to be identified with The Satan in Job then that is not the case unless, after falling, He still would be able to go back to heaven and join the heavenly assembly at will.
Which could be the case but seems a bit odd.
Also, Genesis 6 cannot be a recapitulation (or backtracking) to the fall of Satan, because Satan had fallen, and was already on the earth to tempt Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. The events of Genesis 6 take place after Adam and Eve sinned and were expelled from the Garden and after their descendants had begun to populate the region. So the fall of Satan cannot Scripturally be linked with the events of Genesis 6.
If Satan is to be identified with The Satan in Job then that is not the case unless, after falling, He still would be able to go back to heaven and join the heavenly assembly at will.
Which could be the case but seems a bit odd.
I think I may be missing the point that you are making here, Paul.
Are you implying that the Satan of Job 1:6 is a pre-fallen Satan?
I want to make sure I understand what you are actually saying before I respond.
Okay, Rick asked so let’s begin and go really slow on how the scriptures prove that the Sons of God mentioned in Gen 6:1-4 refer to angels who fell per verse 4 and does not refer to sons of Seth or men.
We will go really slow:
Moses writes a narrative account of creation in the first 12 chapters of Genesis by using the addendum, or what I call the back tracking literary devise common in ancient literature, before he launched out in chapter 12 on a more linear progression of the history of the Jewish people and humanity.
Genesis 1:1 in NASB reads: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth…”
In Hebrew, there is a word that is not translated that follows-after the word Elohim (God).
בראשׁית ברא אלהים את השׁמים ואת הארץ׃Gen 1:1
It consists of two Hebrew letters, the Aleph and the Tav. The first and last letters of the Hebrew alphabet. This word is usually not translated in English text and when it is, a preposition, etc, or verb word maybe applied only when another Hebrew letter is suffixed or prefixed to these two letters.
When this two-letter word is in direct context to Elohim / YHWH it contains another meaning which would cause Gen 1:1 to read thus: “In the beginning God, the First and the Last, created the heavens and the earth…”
This lines up with Hebrews 1:2,3, Col 1:16, John 1:3, Eph 3:9, and Rev 1:8, 17,18
Why is this important to the discussion? answer - understanding…
Genesis chapter one ends in English translations in Gen 1:31, “God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.” NASB
Now, Moses picks up and backtracks to shed more details in Gen 2:4-25. Genesis chapter three backtracks to explain what happened between Gen 1:31 and chapter 3 when all creation was very good to become as it is now as Paul mentions in Romans chapter Five.
Chapter three picks up and explains that something happened on either the 6 or 7 day of Creation.
This is further and later revealed in Ezekiel 28:11-19 when iniquity was found in the heart of an angelic being. This is further revealed in Rev 12:3,4 when what is described in Eph 6:12, 2 Co 4:4, Eph 2:2, John 12:31, John 14:30, John 16:11 is fulfilled. Right now, according to these verses many of the fallen angels are located in the atmosphere around the earth and a few others in the confines of hell/sheol.
In fact, in Job chapter 1 and 2, Satan is where after the flood? Remember, Job was written after the flood and not before.
Rev 12:7-10 refers to another time-period when these beings are actually-cast to earth from their lofty heights just as the text implies and does not refer to verses 3 and 4. Verse 3 links back to Genesis chapter 3 events. Verses 7-10 do not but refer to a future war event just as the text imply. The last days are not a happy time.
Again, why bother with all this background info?
Answer: it applies directly to Gen 6:1-4 and helps uncover if the phrase sons of God refer to Seth’s line or angelic beings who fell. So, let me show you very slowly from scriptures as well as common ancient Hebrew grammar who is being referred to in the text.
Gen chapters 4 and 5 show Cain’s line and Seth’s line. NOTICE in Gen 5:4 Seth is called whose son?
Seth was never, nor his progeny ever called the sons of God but rather son of Adam. Again, the bible is so very clear that Seth is associated clearly as Adam’s son and never as a son of God. Neither is his family line referred to as sons of God but rather as Seth son of Adam. Seth had other sons and daughters, not sons of God or daughters of God but sons and daughters of who - Seth!
That is plain Hebrew proper grammar… To say otherwise is scripture twisting according to medieval bias.
Next
Gen 6:2, in Hebrew, uses that Aleph and Tav directly linked to the word Ha’Elohim
Gen 6:2 ויראו בני־האלהים את־בנות האדם כי טבת הנה ויקחו להם נשׁים מכל אשׁר בחרו
Gen 6:2, “…that the sons of Ha’Elohim, The First and the Last, saw that the daughters of men Ha’Adam.
The prefix Ha’ makes these words a strong plural noun and are affixed to Elohim and Adam. This plural form means - all of God, the Godhead, as Ha’Elohim or can refer to - all the gods - when referring to false gods as in Ex 18:11 and Numbers 33:4.
When affixed to Adam as HaAdam it literally means - ALL THE MEN - meaning ALL, not part - BUT ALL - the men.
So Gen 6:2 can read thus: "the sons of God saw the daughters of ALL THE MEN…." They saw not part, not one line BUT ALL MEN'S daughters. That is what Ha’Adam means, literally….
Right here, we see a distinct distinction that the sons of God have no direct biological link to ALL THE MEN – Ha’Adam but are very different in kind and type further brought out that they were created directly by one known as the First and the Last from a two letter Hebrew word that is not translated: that aleph and Tav I wrote earlier on.
Gen 6:2 can be translated to read: “…that the sons of Ha’Elohim, the First and the Last, saw that the daughters of ALL THE MEN Ha’Adam were beautiful; and they took (by Force) women for themselves, whomever they chose….”
Does not the bible teach that Jesus Christ created everything? Did he not create all Angelic beings?
Therefore, according to proper Hebrew Grammar the sons created by Jesus are the Angels because in Gen 5:4 identifies Seth clearly as a son of Adam.
That explains why Jude 1:6 “And angels who did not keep their own domain, but abandoned their proper abode, He has kept in eternal bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day…” NASB
Genesis six describes their crime, plot, and what turned the good creation God saw into a mess. This described in very few words implying that a long expanse of Time from Gen 3 through Gen 6 happened as well as what the enemy was up too all verified by Rev 12:3-4….
Lets continue
Next, Job 1:6,Job 2:1, Job 38:7 all indicate that the phrase refers to all angelic beings and not people. While, the vast-vast majority the phrase sons of Enosh, Sons of Israel, son of Jacob, Sons of Korah, Sons of Levi, etc and etc used refers to sons of men and they are never referred to sons of God until later in Hosea 1:10…when referring to a later time when Messiah comes to adopt people back as His sons…and daughters...
Hosea 1:10 “Yet the number of the sons of Israel Will be like the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured or numbered; And in the place Where it is said to them, "You are not My people," It will be said to them, "You are the sons of the living God." NASB
This is verified later by the writers if the New Testament in - Eph 1:5, Rom 8:29-30, in the OT in Jer 3:4, Jer 3:19; and summed up in John 1:12
John 1:12 “But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name…” NASB
It may come as a shock, but the only time it becomes scripturally correct that people can be called God’s sons and daughters is by the work of the cross, resurrection, and indwelling of the Holy Spirit. In Genesis 6:1-4 that event had not happened yet.
Phrase used in Gen 6:1-4 sons of God
Therefore, the phrase used in Gen 6:1-4 sons of God never in no way can refer to sons of men. It refers to angelic beings who attempted to stop Jesus, the First and the Last, from crushing the head of the devil, making a public spectacle of them all and triumphing over all of them, coming as the promised seed born of a woman as Isaiah 7:14 and Isaiah 9:6 speaks of so clearly of. Now read Gen 3:15.
Objectors, the Aleph and Tav in direct linkage to Elohim is mentioned in Genesis 6:2 declaring whom made whom. Men begat sons and daughters. God grants them spirit, God created all angelic beings and thus it is correct to call all angelic beings, including the fallen ones, even while being caught in the act sin, to be classed as the sons of HaElohim, the First and the Last. After all, YHWH directly created them, did he not?
To argue that the phrase, sons of God, never refers to fallen angels uses the same logic tree that says that since the word Trinity is not in the bible, therefore, the doctrine of the Divine Trinity can’t be true.
That is absurd and a strawman argument. Period. For to use that logic actually denies the clear contextual usages of the phrase son of Enosh, Son of Jacob, etc and etc and how it is also clearly used in Gen 5:4-32 which makes it plain that ALL THE MEN’s offspring are clearly meant by the word HaAdam as whose daughters came from being made by men and women.
HaElohim -All of God - the Godhead, known as the First and the Last, who created all, made the angelic beings first and thus defines who the sons of God refer too – angelic beings – who do not lose their angel status because they fell. Note Ezekiel 28:13,14,15,16,17, Gen 6:1-11, Rev 12:7,8,9….
So yes, the phrase sons of God can indeed and does refer to fallen angels just as the bible clearly proves.
Maybe after this I can finally get around and answer the threads original question: Were the Nephilim and the Sumerian mythical kings somehow related?
For now, I am done with answer snide remarks and comments as I value other moderators here to much to malign them...
Blessings and peace to you all...
B. W. Melvin
-
-
-
Science is man's invention - creation is God's
(by B. W. Melvin)
Old Polish Proverb:
Not my Circus....not my monkeys
Not necessarily - see my posts and links on that issue, and the book by Hugh Ross on that topic, from about 4 years back:
Ross wrote this book:
Hugh: "I really look at The Book of Job as the foundational text for creation theology ... of all the books in the Bible, the Book of Job has more to say about science and creation than any other Bible book."
So, WAS the Book of Job written BEFORE Genesis? Ross thinks so - see some outtake comments about his contention:
"There is plenty of textual evidence that the book of Job dates about 500 - 600 years before Genesis, "as it has "the patriarchs doing the animal sacrifices in the Book of Job, which means the priestly system was not yet set up. So this would have to pre-date the time of Moses."
" ... atheist scientists love to ridicule Genesis for everything Moses left out ... (but) the stuff that's left out is in the Book of Job, so Moses didn't have to repeat it."
And there are some truly thought-provoking comments in its reviews:http://www.amazon.com/Hidden-Treasures- ... ewpoints=1 And lots of interesting YEC / OEC comments related to the subject are included in the reviews.
Also, Michael Heiser on the term "satan" as used in Job 1 and 2:http://drmsh.com/the-absence-of-satan-i ... testament/ - he gives a scholar's explanation of why the grammar reveals that the term, as used in Job, isn't referring to a personal name.
"There are a lot of things in Job in the story and the characteristics of the characters that reflect a patriarchal time period which would be before the Law of Moses, the time of Abraham we’ll say."
"You can't assume that (that the above confirms that). For Job, good scholars, evangelical or otherwise, have dated Job anywhere from the eighth century BC all the way to the third, into the 300. So it's just one of those books that’s almost impossible to really know for sure."
"... there are late Hebrew -isms in Job that wouldn’t make sense if the book was written way back in the time of Moses or something earlier. That's just the way it is. So Job is a book that really people struggle to date and date coherently. They guess, that's what scholars do, they guess, and they build an argument to take a position and then they go on to the next thing. That's just the nature of what we’re dealing with here."
