nephilim
- Thread starter ckhascall
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
I think it was Samuel, basically because the text itself is written as though it really is him, and AFAIK gives no indication that it's not. I understand why people think, nah, can't be, but I don't think any of their arguments stand up against the scripture itself acting just like it really is. Notice the witch's attitude completely changes and she seems almost shocked - which I know is subjective, but I think it's consistent with it really being Samuel.
It is amazing, yes, if it is. But we ought to be used to the Bible saying amazing things
It is amazing, yes, if it is. But we ought to be used to the Bible saying amazing things
-
1
- Show all
I think it was Samuel, basically because the text itself is written as though it really is him, and AFAIK gives no indication that it's not. I understand why people think, nah, can't be, but I don't think any of their arguments stand up against the scripture itself acting just like it really is. Notice the witch's attitude completely changes and she seems almost shocked - which I know is subjective, but I think it's consistent with it really being Samuel.
It is amazing, yes, if it is. But we ought to be used to the Bible saying amazing things
It is amazing, yes, if it is. But we ought to be used to the Bible saying amazing things
-
1
- Show all
You have carnal and you have Spirit. The daughters of men, (as well as the sons of men) who are carnal, go after the things in the world. The sons of God, (as well as the daughters of God) are Spiritually inclined whose hearts go after things spiritual.
Those spiritually inclined, however, can be tempted to appreciate carnal things in the world, especially in the outer persona of a beautiful woman.
Those spiritually inclined, however, can be tempted to appreciate carnal things in the world, especially in the outer persona of a beautiful woman.
It puts Cain in a very interesting position to have to depend on Abel to provide a Lamb
Part of this leads to an argument that perhaps Cain brought figs - and that the tree of the knowledge of good from evil is a fig tree. Speculation of course. But interesting
Part of this leads to an argument that perhaps Cain brought figs - and that the tree of the knowledge of good from evil is a fig tree. Speculation of course. But interesting
-
1
- Show all
I believe Adam was created in the image and likeness of God:
Genesis 1:
26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Genesis 5:
1 This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;
2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.
I believe Adam's children were begotten in the image/likeness of Adam and, at the time they were begotten, they were begotten in Adam's fallen image.
I believe I was begotten in the image/likeness of my father and mother and you were begotten in the image/likeness of your father and mother.
If we entertain angels without knowing they are angels, then they would look just like us ... so would they be gigantic?
Adam was 130 yrs old when Seth was born (Gen 5:3). How old was Adam when Cain was born? ... Abel?
And when the lifespan is hundreds of years, 130 is not old. In our day and time, 130 is unheard of and back then, they were having children at 130. Consider how old Abraham and Sarah were when Isaac was born.
Genesis 1:
26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Genesis 5:
1 This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;
2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.
I believe Adam's children were begotten in the image/likeness of Adam and, at the time they were begotten, they were begotten in Adam's fallen image.
I believe I was begotten in the image/likeness of my father and mother and you were begotten in the image/likeness of your father and mother.
If we entertain angels without knowing they are angels, then they would look just like us ... so would they be gigantic?
Adam was 130 yrs old when Seth was born (Gen 5:3). How old was Adam when Cain was born? ... Abel?
And when the lifespan is hundreds of years, 130 is not old. In our day and time, 130 is unheard of and back then, they were having children at 130. Consider how old Abraham and Sarah were when Isaac was born.
It puts Cain in a very interesting position to have to depend on Abel to provide a Lamb
Part of this leads to an argument that perhaps Cain brought figs - and that the tree of the knowledge of good from evil is a fig tree. Speculation of course. But interesting
Part of this leads to an argument that perhaps Cain brought figs - and that the tree of the knowledge of good from evil is a fig tree. Speculation of course. But interesting
Would Adam’s age even be accurate? At 1 year old was he already a man? Regardless, I think perhaps they may have had a 100 year growrh rate. I’m not certain what the whole story behind why there was hybrids. I think the best way to describe it was that they took them as wives and bore them children. Perhaps it was simply genetic experiments to make demigods. I’m not saying I believe or disbelieve accounts that people get abducted by strange beings. However I find it interesting that one of the common things they report is that they are making hybrids. Sometimes they report that they were pregnant and then the baby was gone. I find it extremely interesting, but I see how some instances can be psychologically orchestrated. Given that is what is written in the Bible I can’t dismiss it either.
Are you talking about recent alleged alien abductions ? If so I think I heard that Christians don't experience that phenomena and also that some think it is pure demonic and non alien .. I also believe some are mk-ultra mind control induced experiments .. I have a testimony or two of demonic encounters but some I'd never give them on a message board .. Ever heard of Satanist Army lt col Michael Aquino ?
I believe God created Adam as full grown adult. Gen 2 states God placed Adam in the garden to dress and to keep it (vs 15). I don't think an infant or a child would be able to tend to a garden. Also, Adam named all the cattle, and the birds, and all the beasts (vs 20). Again ... not a task for an infant or child.
I believe it has to do with what God told satan in Gen 3:15:
Genesis 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
satan knew at that point that there would be a seed of the woman.
The offspring of the woman = the Lord Jesus Christ.
If satan could prevent the birth of the Lord Jesus Christ, he'd protect himself.
That's why I believe satan went after the daughters of men (Gen 6:4) ... because God told satan it would be the seed of the woman.
I believe it has to do with what God told satan in Gen 3:15:
Genesis 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
satan knew at that point that there would be a seed of the woman.
The offspring of the woman = the Lord Jesus Christ.
If satan could prevent the birth of the Lord Jesus Christ, he'd protect himself.
That's why I believe satan went after the daughters of men (Gen 6:4) ... because God told satan it would be the seed of the woman.
S
Refreshing attitude. Sincerity is a necessity when it comes to seeking the intended interpretation. I would point first to the hermeneutic rule of immediate context. Which is also the more natural form of reading comprehension whether one has ever heard of hermeneutics or not.
When you read the statement the sons of god saw that the daughters of men were fair.. .and you notice no explanation is given as to who these sons of god are, your first natural reaction is to wonder if you missed something that was already said about the sons of god. So you look backwards in the text and find in it 4:26,. Calling themselves By the name of the Lord is an acceptable translation which is found in your KJV marginal notes.
If one calls themselves By the name of the Lord, another form of that would be calling themselves sons of God or Children of God, or the People of God in some manner or fashion. They found it necessary to identify themselves as sons of God because there was another civilization on the East of Eden under Cain that were not godly. This is the most natural interpretation that one could achieve without human assistant, if all they had was a bible and no previous teaching on the subject.
Give someone a bible and a 10th grade reading comprehension skill and put them on a desert Island and the idea of fallen angels will never enter their minds but they are likely to discover 4:26 when attempting to see where they missed the reference to the sons of God in 6.
Now leaving the immediate context approach and moving on to the theological context (other scriptures in the bible that support the theological idea) If it is true that God declares his plan to bring a flood right after the statement that the sons of god saw the daughters of men and married all which they chose, that the godly fell away to the ungodly until their was not a righteous man left of the camp called the sons of God but Noah alone, this theological concept of the godly falling away by the corruption of the influence of the world is a theme that continues throughout the bible all the way to Jesus words to the 7 churches in revelation.
This is a very strong theme in the bible. The counsel of Balaam who taught Balak to send the Moabite women (prostitutes) into the camp of Israel which caused God to judge them with a plague. The story of Sampson and Delilah, Pretty much every time Israel backslid into idolatry involved harlotry, Solomon's backsliding from his foreign wives and concubines, again and again we see the lesson, into the New Testament we hear the continuous call to Come out from among her (spiritual Babylon, worldly harlotry) and be separate. The letter to the 7 churches, the call to repentance throughout the book of Revelation calling out a people who would be separate and not bow the knee to the image or take the mark or drink of the cup of the harlot. These are all symbolic of holiness and separation from the world.
Another method of interpretation is to see if this verse of scripture Gen 6:2 concerning the sons of god are referenced by any other writer in another book of the bible and commented on. I believe Jesus is indeed commenting on the sons of god taking wives of the all which they chose from the daughters of men when he said when he comes again it will be as in the days of Noah they will be marrying and giving in marriage. Jesus is referring to people and not fallen angels and therefore if he is referencing this verse in Gen then he is commenting on it as people and we have his interpretation to stand on and this should end all controversy on the matter.
Also Jesus said angels neither marry or are given in marriage, and to suggest that he meant only angels who had not fallen has no authority and seems to be a desperate attempt to cling to a erroneous interpretation thoroughly defeated.
When you read the statement the sons of god saw that the daughters of men were fair.. .and you notice no explanation is given as to who these sons of god are, your first natural reaction is to wonder if you missed something that was already said about the sons of god. So you look backwards in the text and find in it 4:26,. Calling themselves By the name of the Lord is an acceptable translation which is found in your KJV marginal notes.
If one calls themselves By the name of the Lord, another form of that would be calling themselves sons of God or Children of God, or the People of God in some manner or fashion. They found it necessary to identify themselves as sons of God because there was another civilization on the East of Eden under Cain that were not godly. This is the most natural interpretation that one could achieve without human assistant, if all they had was a bible and no previous teaching on the subject.
Give someone a bible and a 10th grade reading comprehension skill and put them on a desert Island and the idea of fallen angels will never enter their minds but they are likely to discover 4:26 when attempting to see where they missed the reference to the sons of God in 6.
Now leaving the immediate context approach and moving on to the theological context (other scriptures in the bible that support the theological idea) If it is true that God declares his plan to bring a flood right after the statement that the sons of god saw the daughters of men and married all which they chose, that the godly fell away to the ungodly until their was not a righteous man left of the camp called the sons of God but Noah alone, this theological concept of the godly falling away by the corruption of the influence of the world is a theme that continues throughout the bible all the way to Jesus words to the 7 churches in revelation.
This is a very strong theme in the bible. The counsel of Balaam who taught Balak to send the Moabite women (prostitutes) into the camp of Israel which caused God to judge them with a plague. The story of Sampson and Delilah, Pretty much every time Israel backslid into idolatry involved harlotry, Solomon's backsliding from his foreign wives and concubines, again and again we see the lesson, into the New Testament we hear the continuous call to Come out from among her (spiritual Babylon, worldly harlotry) and be separate. The letter to the 7 churches, the call to repentance throughout the book of Revelation calling out a people who would be separate and not bow the knee to the image or take the mark or drink of the cup of the harlot. These are all symbolic of holiness and separation from the world.
Another method of interpretation is to see if this verse of scripture Gen 6:2 concerning the sons of god are referenced by any other writer in another book of the bible and commented on. I believe Jesus is indeed commenting on the sons of god taking wives of the all which they chose from the daughters of men when he said when he comes again it will be as in the days of Noah they will be marrying and giving in marriage. Jesus is referring to people and not fallen angels and therefore if he is referencing this verse in Gen then he is commenting on it as people and we have his interpretation to stand on and this should end all controversy on the matter.
Also Jesus said angels neither marry or are given in marriage, and to suggest that he meant only angels who had not fallen has no authority and seems to be a desperate attempt to cling to a erroneous interpretation thoroughly defeated.
-
1
-
1
- Show all